beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a business operator operating the automobile maintenance business, etc., and the Defendant served as an inspector belonging to the Plaintiff’s division from April 6, 2009 to February 29, 2016, and was in charge of the automobile inspection.
B. On March 24, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of retirement pay under this Court No. 2016Ada15401, and rendered a judgment on March 24, 2017, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 12,135,361 to the Defendant and its delayed payment damages,” and the Plaintiff appealed with Suwon District Court No. 2017Na6822, Nov. 24, 2017, but the dismissal of the appeal became final and conclusive as it was.
(hereinafter referred to as "related case"). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion is an employee who entered into a labor contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to settle the retirement allowance including the amount of performance, and since such agreement is null and void, the defendant is obligated to return the amount of performance received from the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
B. Determination 1) Relevant legal principles (1) The facts acknowledged in a final and conclusive judgment on a civil case involving other civil and criminal cases related thereto are significant evidence, barring any special circumstance. (2) The res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment, in principle, is recognized only to be included in the text. However, even if it is included in the reasons, the res judicata effect of a claim for return of unjust enrichment identical to the cause of the claim in the instant case is limited to the amount asserted as a offset (Article 216(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). According to the facts acknowledged as mentioned above and the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 9, in the relevant case brought by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, it is recognized that there are retirement allowance claims of the Defendant against the Plaintiff and the amount equivalent to the damages for delay.