1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 34,683,705 to the Plaintiff and KRW 12,98,611 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and each of them.

1. Basic facts

A. From December 28, 2007, Plaintiff A worked as a full-time lecturer at the Dental Institute operated by the Defendant from March 1, 2012 to May 16, 2017.

B. The wages from February 16, 2017 to May 15, 2017, which were three months immediately preceding the retirement of the Plaintiffs, from February 16, 2017, to May 15, 2017, Plaintiff A is KRW 11,225,727 (i.e., KRW 3,806,64,648 Won 3,806,692 Won 3,74,266 Won 1,830,121). Plaintiff B is KRW 7,710,376 (= KRW 1,346,892 Won 2,901,000).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 and 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that they are workers who provided labor to the Defendant under the direction and supervision of the Defendant under the subordinate relationship with the Defendant, and seek a retirement allowance against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff B seek payment of KRW 35,527,474, and damages for delay.

B. (1) The Plaintiffs are only a person who voluntarily gives a lectures according to the Plaintiff’s own judgment without receiving the Defendant’s instructions, and are not a subordinate employee to the Defendant.

Luxembourg Even if the Defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiffs, the amount equivalent to 1/12 of the monthly remuneration from November 2013 to May 2017 under the retirement allowance division agreement with the Plaintiffs was paid to Plaintiff A as retirement allowances of the amount equivalent to 13,596,553 won, Plaintiff B as retirement allowances of the amount equivalent to 11,175,702 won, and Plaintiff B as retirement pension from the bank on May 22, 2017, and Plaintiff B received KRW 843,769, and Plaintiff B as retirement pension from the bank on May 22, 2017, and KRW 554,619. Accordingly, Plaintiff B is set off within the scope of KRW 6,852,437 won, which exceeds the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the retirement allowance claim prohibited from seizure (=13,704,874 won x 1/2).

Abstract also sought the return of unjust enrichment as a counterclaim against the Plaintiff 4,323,265 won (=11,175,702 won - 6,852,437 won) which is prohibited from set-off against Plaintiff B.

3. Judgment on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

A. The Plaintiff A from December 2007, and Plaintiff B from March 2012, 2012.