The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. Basic facts

A. From October 11, 2017 to October 12, 2018, the Plaintiff retired while serving in C, the Defendant’s workplace.

B. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 11,725,690, total of KRW 640,00 in July 2018, KRW 480,00 in August 2018, KRW 4,240,00 in September 2018, and KRW 11,80,00 in retirement pay and retirement pay and KRW 4,565,690 in October 2018.

C. The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2.5 million from the Incheon District Court on November 15, 2019, on the grounds of the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which did not pay the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance within 14 days from the date of retirement, including the aforementioned unpaid wages (the Incheon District Court Decision 2019DaMa1678, Nov. 15, 2019), and the Defendant recognized all the above criminal facts at the time.

The defendant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed (the Supreme Court Decision 2019No4067 Decided August 14, 2020). The defendant re-appeals to the Supreme Court, which is currently pending in the final appeal (the Supreme Court Decision 2020Do11954 Decided August 14, 202).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, entry of Gap 1, 2 and 3, and purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 11,725,690 in wages and retirement allowances and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum under Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act from October 12, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the following day after 14 days from October 12, 2018, on which the Plaintiff retired.

B. The defendant's assertion is asserted that the plaintiff was absent from work without permission for one year or more at the defendant's place of business, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance should be accepted.