1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following additional payment order.

1. Basic facts

A. Relevant Defendant is operating “F” under the building E in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”).

The network G (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) served as an English instructor of the instant private teaching institute from March 7, 2013 to February 27, 2015.

As the Deceased died on October 6, 2016, the Plaintiff A and the Deceased’s son B were co-inheritors, the spouse of the Deceased.

B. The Deceased’s retirement record against the Defendant was serving in the instant educational institute as above and did not receive retirement allowances of KRW 4,948,208 from the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims

A. In light of the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance paid to the Plaintiff 2,968,920 won corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance (=4,948,208 won x 3/5 x 3/5, and hereinafter the same applies), 1,979,280 won corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance among retirement allowances unpaid to the Plaintiff B (=4,948,208 x 2/5) and delay damages for the said money.

B. As to the Defendant’s argument, the Defendant agreed to pay the retirement allowance in addition to the monthly wage at the request of the deceased, and accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 5,150,00,000 per month from April 5, 2013 to March 7, 2014, and KRW 2,50,000 per month from April 7, 2014 to February 7, 2015. As such, the Defendant has no separate obligation to pay the deceased’s retirement allowance on behalf of the deceased. Even if the payment of the interim retirement allowance is not recognized, the Defendant has a unjust enrichment claim equivalent to the above KRW 5,150,00 against the deceased, and thus, the Defendant’s above unjust enrichment claim against the deceased is set off on an equal amount with the deceased’s retirement allowance claim as seen earlier.