1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures piping facilities with the trade name “E” in Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, and the Defendant was working in “E” operated by the Plaintiff from November 1, 201 to February 16, 2014.

B. From November 201 to February 2013, 201, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 5 million each month from March 201 to February 2013, and the amount of KRW 6 million per month from March 2013 to February 2014 ( KRW 6 million for March 2013, KRW 5,856,849 for each period from April 201 to June 2013, and KRW 5,85,149 for each period from July 2013 to December 2013, 2014, and KRW 3,501,505,54,239 for retirement and KRW 5,505 for working days from January 2, 2014).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. On January 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the division of retirement allowances with the Defendant to pay in advance a certain amount of money as retirement allowances, in addition to the monthly salary paid, and paid 73,000,000 won in total from February 2, 2012 to February 2, 2014. However, since the aforementioned agreement on the division of retirement allowances is not recognized as interim settlement of retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act, the Defendant shall return 73,00,000 won to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) Although the Defendant was to receive KRW 56,810,000 from the Plaintiff separately from the monthly salary, it was not paid in accordance with the agreement on the division of retirement allowances, it was paid as the Plaintiff’s Scare allowance, event daily and job allowance.

B. Determination 1 A) The Defendant was employed by the Plaintiff and served as a substitute engineer before serving in E.

B. From November 201 to November 2013, 201, F, working as the contract team leader, is deemed to be “the Defendant as the contact team,” while F, as a contract team, created a contract team with the Plaintiff and received work by contract from the Plaintiff.”