1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the reasoning of the court of first instance is written or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was written or added, was deleted from the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, to the part of the “calculated” of the first to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The following shall be added to the end of the first instance judgment at the end of the first instance judgment:

In addition, each of the instant cases is prepared in the sense of confirming that the Plaintiff gave up retirement allowances in advance after the Plaintiff’s retirement, and thus, constitutes a waiver of the right to claim retirement allowances in fact, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention on the above written statement is invalid even in this respect as follows.

In addition, each of the instant statements was prepared on October 8, 2014 when several months from the date of retirement of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid a total of KRW 11.8 million in the name of unpaid benefits and retirement allowances, etc. even after the Plaintiff’s retirement, as seen earlier. In full view of the above facts and the developments leading up to the preparation of the instant statements, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff renounced the right to claim retirement benefits through the instant written statement, and rather, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff retired and renounced it after the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement benefits occurred. Accordingly, the first instance judgment of the first instance court, from the date of the Plaintiff’s retirement on a different premise, the part of the first to the fifth at the bottom of the fifth to fifth at the end of the fifth is as follows.

“1 The Plaintiff is paid in excess of the retirement allowance from the Defendant, and thus, should return it as unjust enrichment.

In other words, the retirement allowance that the plaintiff should lawfully receive is KRW 21,173,782, and the total amount of the retirement allowance that the plaintiff received as a monthly wage is KRW 13,576,338, and the amount that the defendant paid additionally after the plaintiff's retirement is included in the retirement allowance.