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. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition (1) The Defendant is a person who has been operating a restaurant of the trade name “D” in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

(2) The Plaintiff worked in the Defendant’s restaurant as a cook from April 24, 2007 to April 7, 2013, and was not paid retirement allowance of KRW 10,134,790.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest in arrears calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 22, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is 14 days after the retirement pay of KRW 10,134,790 as well as 14 days after the retirement date.

2. On April 24, 2007, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff on April 24, 2007, which included the retirement pay in the monthly salary, and the Plaintiff agreed to recognize that the retirement pay is included in the salary every year at the time of increase of the salary.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the monthly salary was paid including retirement allowances, as argued by the defendant.

In addition, if an employer and an employee agreed to pay in advance a certain amount of money with a monthly or daily allowance paid by the employee (hereinafter “retirement Allowance installment agreement”), such agreement is null and void in violation of the mandatory law by giving up the employee’s right to claim a retirement allowance incurred at the time of the final retirement, unless it is acknowledged as an interim settlement of the retirement allowance, and thus, the employer paid the employee the money in the name of the retirement allowance in accordance with the agreement to divide the retirement allowance.

Even if there is no validity as retirement allowance payment (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da95147 Decided October 11, 2012), any mother seems to have any effect, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with this conclusion.