1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 16,420,950 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 13, 2013 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. From August 29, 2005 to August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff served as a part-time lecturer in charge of Japanese language at B University established and operated by the Defendant.

The plaintiff was demoted by means of three to fourteen hours per week during the above service period, such as living day fishing, practical day fishing, etc.

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff tuition fees of KRW 80,00 per hour in the first semester of 2013, and did not pay the tuition fees in the absence of lectures, and did not pay any additional money in addition to the tuition fees.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 3, 6 through 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a part-time lecturer of the defendant who provided his labor to the defendant in the subordinate position, and the defendant is obligated to pay the retirement allowance to the plaintiff.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s average wage is less than the ordinary wage, if calculating the retirement allowance based on the ordinary wage, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the claim and the damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff provided labor for less than 15 hours per week, and thus, when applying the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (hereinafter "Retirement Benefits Act"), the defendant is not obligated to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances are revealed from the evidence before the existence of the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement allowance and the purport of the entire statement and arguments as stated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 9 and 13. In other words, the Defendant maintained employment relations in the form of re-commissioning the Plaintiff every semester during the Plaintiff’s work period, and during that period, the Plaintiff was engaged in lectures according to the academic schedule set by the Defendant, and the Defendant set up a management guidelines for part-time instructors, which can be viewed as a kind of employment rules, and imposed a duty to submit the Plaintiff to the attendance, sexual evaluation, data preservation, good faith duty (compliance with the duration of lectures