1. The defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, re-appellant)'s petition for retrial is dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial are the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff.

1. According to the records, such as the confirmation of the instant judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts may be acknowledged.

On July 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 500,000, retirement allowances of KRW 2,548,360, advance notice allowances for dismissal, KRW 1,607,65, and KRW 170,010 for year-end settlement, and KRW 4,826,025. On November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the lower judgment for full acceptance (Seoul District Court Decision 2017Gau12899, Sungnam-gu, Busan District Court).

B. On January 2, 2018, the Defendant appealed against the above judgment and claimed that the wages and retirement allowances, etc. that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff are merely KRW 3,792,410. Furthermore, on January 2, 2018, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the excess amounting to KRW 6,998,461, which was erroneously paid to the Plaintiff, and filed a counterclaim for offset. On January 24, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment dismissing all the Defendant’s appeal and counterclaim (the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal and counterclaim (the instant judgment subject to retrial) (the Military Court Decision 2017Na18467, 2018Na98, hereinafter “instant judgment subject to retrial”).

C. On February 14, 2019, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is with the final appeal period by the original Defendant, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit for retrial on March 12, 2019, the Do and the previous review period.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. According to the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff was absent from work several times from January 4, 2016 to February 10, 2017, the period of service of the Plaintiff, pursuant to the evidence No. 9 (record of commuting) submitted by the Defendant to the lower court prior to the reexamination. In such a case, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the “paid allowance”.

Nevertheless, since the Defendant erroneously paid the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 6,98,461, such as “the full-time allowance,” it is reasonable to deem that there exists a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the Plaintiff.

The judgment subject to the review of this case is based on the evidence judgment on the evidence No. 9(s) and the facts as to whether the plaintiff was absent from office.