1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Where there is no dispute between the parties to the determination on the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including each number number in case of additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant, who was employed as an instructor of a private teaching institute and worked for the defendant from October 11, 2013 to December 31, 2016, was not paid retirement pay of KRW 9,787,432, and retirement pay of KRW 14,231,528 to the plaintiff who retired after being employed as an instructor of a private teaching institute from June 11, 2012 to August 16, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance of KRW 9,787,432 and the amount that is paid to the Plaintiff A at the rate of 20% per annum from January 15, 2017, which is the 14th day following the date of Plaintiff A’s retirement, to Plaintiff B’s retirement allowance of KRW 14,231,528, and from August 31, 2018, to the date of full payment of KRW 14th day following the date of Plaintiff B’s retirement.

2. The defendant's defense 1) asserts as follows. At the time of concluding a labor contract with the plaintiffs, the defendant made an agreement on the division of retirement allowances (specificly, the amount corresponding to the monthly salary multiplied by 12 months for the plaintiffs' monthly salary multiplied by 13 months and the monthly salary, whichever is corresponding to the plaintiffs' working days for the pertinent month, as retirement allowances) to pay the plaintiffs a total amount of money equivalent to the amount of retirement allowances according to the above agreement. The amount is 8,492,520 won in total to the plaintiffs A, and 12,262,050 won in total to the plaintiffs B. Accordingly, the defendant did not have a retirement allowance any longer paid to the plaintiffs, and if the above division agreement is null and void in violation of the mandatory law, the defendant has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiffs, which is set off against each of the above claims for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant by the plaintiffs.