beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4-1, 2, and 5-1, 4-2, and Gap evidence Nos. 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter "the plaintiff, etc.") and the selected party (hereinafter "the plaintiff, etc.") have served in the "C" operated by the defendant for each corresponding period as indicated in the "period" as indicated in the attached Table Nos. 2, and the plaintiff's average wage per day during the three months before February 5, 2014, on which the plaintiff, etc. retired, shall be 45,842.39, and the average wage per day of the selected party shall be 51,820.65, and thus, retirement allowances corresponding to each service period of the plaintiff, etc. shall be retirement allowances of the plaintiff, etc., 4,319,860 won (less than one hundred won, hereinafter the same shall apply), 6,697,650 won.
(Calculation Details are as shown in the attached Table 2). Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 4,319,860 won, 6,697,650 won, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from February 5, 2014, which was 14 days after February 20, 2014, which was 14 days after the retirement date of the plaintiff, etc. to the date of complete payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion ① (a) the selected person retired several times during the period of his/her service at the Defendant Company and repeated re-admissions. As such, the period of his/her employment for at least one year is limited to 884 days from September 5, 201 to February 5, 2014, and ② the Defendant paid the Plaintiff, etc. a monthly retirement allowance at the request of the Plaintiff, etc., and there is no longer a retirement allowance to be paid. ③ If the monthly retirement allowance is not effective as a retirement allowance, the amount equivalent to the amount of the said retirement allowance shall be refunded to the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to return the unjust enrichment return claim, which exceeds 1/2 of the Plaintiff, etc.’s retirement allowance claim.