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. On December 1, 2010, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff started work from March 7, 2010, as the evidence Nos. 7 (Written Indictment) that the Plaintiff had commenced work from March 7, 2010. However, the evidence Nos. 1 (written confirmation of delayed wage, etc.) and evidence Nos. 4 (written statement of calculation of retirement allowances) include the Plaintiff’s commencement of work from December 1, 2010.

The plaintiff also asserted the commencement date of work on December 1, 2010 in the complaint of this case as the date of commencement of work, and it is recognized as above because the defendant does not dispute this.

From the date of May 26, 2017 to the date of Jinju building, it provides labor under employment of the Defendant who operates D, and retires, and the fact that the Plaintiff was not paid retirement allowance of KRW 11,286,271 by the Defendant without an agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties, may be recognized either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of each of the statements and arguments stated in subparagraphs 1 to 8.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 11,286,271 as well as damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act and the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits from June 10, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the 14th day after the retirement of the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Upon entering into an employment contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to pay 100,000 won as retirement allowance each month as well as to raise 100,000 won of retirement allowance each year, and accordingly paid the retirement allowance in advance.

Since the Plaintiff is obligated to return the amount received as retirement allowances to the Defendant in accordance with such agreement, there is no money to be paid to the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff offsets the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance claim against the Defendant’s unjust enrichment return claim.

B. The relevant legal doctrine and the daily wage paid by the employee is together with the monthly wage or daily wage to be paid by the employee.