1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in civil engineering and construction business, etc., and the Defendant served as a management director at the Plaintiff Company from January 25, 201 to November 30, 2014, and was in charge of accounting and accounting.

B. On April 25, 2013, the Defendant received 7 million won as advance payment from the account held in the Plaintiff’s name.

C. From September 3, 2014 to November 3, 2014, the Defendant did not receive KRW 11,250,00,00 in total (i.e., monthly salary of KRW 3.750,00 in x 3 months) and the unpaid retirement allowances of KRW 8,542,340 in total (i.e., total retirement allowances of KRW 15,527,199 in - retirement allowances of KRW 15,527,199 in - retirement allowances received from a new bank on December 3, 2014).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 7 million, which was transferred from the account held in the name of the Plaintiff on April 25, 2013, as compensation for tort or as unjust enrichment, and that the Defendant was paid as interim settlement of retirement pay.

B. (1) Determination (1) The fact that the Defendant received KRW 7 million from the account under the Plaintiff’s name on April 25, 2013 is difficult to view that the Defendant embezzled the Plaintiff’s funds, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s tort.

Rather, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 2, the defendant applied for interim settlement of retirement pay to the plaintiff, but it does not constitute an interim settlement ground as provided in the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff paid 7 million won as advance payment once he retires after the retirement. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion of tort is without merit.

(2) Meanwhile, even if there was an interim settlement agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff on retirement allowances, the retirement benefits are to be paid.