beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant Company, as the parties, was established with the trade name “Co. E” on July 31, 1991 and changed to the trade name as of June 201 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant Company”).
The defendant C is the representative director, and the plaintiff is working as the door-to-door sales member of the defendant company from July 1, 1993, and since October 2003, the head of the branch office as the business operator manager, the vice president from May 2005, the former office from July 2013, and the former office from August 2013 to August 2013.
B. The Plaintiff’s benefits, such as changes in the Plaintiff’s benefits, were KRW 12,00,00 on April, 201. However, the Defendant Company’s policy to pay the Defendant Company including the subsidy provided in accordance with the business activation policy was gradually implemented, and the amount was increased to KRW 13,846,160 on May, 201, and the amount was adjusted after the demonstration implementation, and the amount was reduced to KRW 11,538,470 on July, 201, and KRW 11,076,930 on October, 201, respectively.
Meanwhile, according to the change of the business management system of the Defendant Company around the end of 2012 as well as the change of the criteria for the payment of wages (based on the position in the position standard) from December 2012 to 2,190,840 won per month, the Plaintiff’s salary was reduced to 1,978,820 won in May 2013, and 2,190,840 won in June 2013, and 2,190,840 won in July 2013, and 1,251,70 won in July 2013. However, such reduction was not continuously made every month, and there was a little increase in the amount.
C. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff’s retirement, retired from the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company, on April 24, 2014, based on the premise that the “retirement allowance from May 1, 2005 to June 30, 2012” was already paid twice to the Plaintiff, and that the “retirement allowance from May 1, 2005 to June 30, 2012” was already paid on two occasions.