1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who engages in wholesale and retail business, such as construction machinery maintenance, vehicle maintenance, repair of parts, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is an employee employed by the said workplace.

B. From March 18, 2013, the Defendant entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff and left the Plaintiff’s workplace on March 28, 2014.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence No. 1, and the ground for appeal

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of entering into an employment contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the retirement allowance to be received at the time of retirement in the future by dividing it each month with the monthly wage, and paid the Defendant a retirement allowance of KRW 2,841,340 on November 29, 201 to March 14, 201, and paid the Defendant a total of KRW 2,841,340 for 375 days.

However, since the above retirement allowance division agreement is null and void, the defendant is obligated to return the above amount received from the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant received monthly salary of KRW 3,000,000 from the Plaintiff based on the actual amount received, and entered into an employment contract under which the Plaintiff, who is the business owner, both the remaining four premium and the wage and salary income tax, were to bear the monthly wage of KRW 3,00,000, and only received KRW 3,000 per month until retirement, and did not themselves conclude the retirement allowance division agreement.

3. The statements of evidence No. 2-1 to No. 3 are written statements or factual confirmations of workers working at the plaintiff's workplace, and it is not enough to recognize that there was a retirement allowance division agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 3 and 1-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, the Defendant received a favorable judgment from the original district court 2014Kadan18233, which filed against the Plaintiff on February 25, 2015, in which the Defendant received a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on February 25, 2015.