1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants is modified as follows. A.

(1) Defendant B shall be liable to the Plaintiff for 9,943.

Basic Facts

The reasons for this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance [1. Basic Facts]. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, each retirement pay that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendants was paid to the Defendants according to the disciplinary dismissal order on October 18, 201 and November 1, 2011. Since there is no dispute between the parties that each of the above disciplinary dismissal is null and void, each of the above payments did not have any legal cause.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return retirement pay to the Plaintiff in unjust enrichment. Defendant B is obligated to pay legal interest or delay damages from June 3, 2013, the reinstated date when the Defendants came to know that there were no legal grounds for the payment of retirement pay in relation to the aforementioned amount, including the amount of 29,983,919 won, Defendant C is 12,591,602 won, Defendant D is 9,840,96 won, Defendant F is 29,162,604 won, and each of the above amounts.

(1) The Defendants asserted that the obligation to return unjust enrichment is not due to delay from June 3, 2013, and that the obligation is not due to delay from the time of receiving a claim for performance. However, Article 748(2) of the Civil Act provides that “A malicious beneficiary shall compensate for any loss incurred by return with interest added thereto.” Since the above Defendants are liable to return with interest added thereto as a malicious beneficiary after the date of reinstatement, the Defendants’ assertion against the above Defendants is not accepted on different premise. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s payment of the amount of health insurance premiums and long-term care insurance premiums of the Defendants is as seen earlier. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay the amount of the employee’s share of health insurance premiums and long-term care premiums of the Defendants, Defendant C, Defendant C, and Defendant D, Defendant D, 2,164,560 won, Defendant F, and Defendant F, 1,646,160 won, and damages for delay.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought the return of unjust enrichment regarding each dismissal allowance paid to the Defendants.