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.

The Plaintiff employed the Defendant from September 11, 201 to December 31, 2013, when operating the skin management office, and entered into an employment contract with the Defendant as above, and entered into an employment contract with the Defendant, and entered into a substantive retirement allowance agreement with the Defendant that the Defendant would not pay the retirement allowance to the Defendant separately at the time of retirement instead of paying by the Plaintiff taxes and public charges, such as income tax, etc. The above retirement allowance division or unpaid agreement is null and void as it violates Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the Plaintiff pays a separate retirement allowance to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant also has a duty to return the above 2,543,510 won as unjust enrichment, including 50% of the four major insurance premiums paid by the Plaintiff, including income tax, and 50% of the insurance premiums paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed not to pay the retirement allowance separately to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that there was an actual retirement allowance division agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without examining further.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.