(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.05.18 2017나60863

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.05.18 2017나60863

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, instead of paying retirement allowances, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant’s four premiums to be borne by the Defendant to the Defendant and the Defendant, and paid the Defendant’s four premiums from February 2, 2013 to December 2, 2013 (i.e., National Pension KRW 494,150, KRW 345,170, KRW 71,370).

However, the defendant did not receive retirement allowances from the plaintiff and won the case by filing a lawsuit with the Gwangju District Court 2016 Ghana3797, and the plaintiff paid retirement allowances to the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant should return the amount equivalent to the premium paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. (1) Determination is reasonable from the perspective of fairness, inasmuch as an employer does not recognize the validity of a fixed retirement allowance payment even though the employer actually paid the money in the name of the retirement allowance to an employee, and the validity of a payment as a wage is not recognized, it is reasonable to view that the employer should return the money in the name of the retirement allowance received by the employee to the employer as unjust enrichment, on the other hand, while the employee suffered losses equivalent to the same amount by paying the money in the name of the

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760 Decided May 20, 2010). However, considering the legislative intent of the retirement allowance system as a mandatory law, the above legal principle is applied only on the premise that there exists a substantive installment agreement between the employer and the employee. Although the pertinent agreement entered into by the employer and the employee is merely a determination of wages, if the employer took only the form of an installment agreement in order to evade the payment of retirement allowances, the above legal principle cannot be applied.

In other words,

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 5. 20. 선고 2007다90760 전원합의체 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.06.23 2015나8466

-창원지방법원 2017.11.23 2017나54378

-창원지방법원 2017.08.10 2016나60741

-대법원 2014.12.24 2012다21119

-제주지방법원 2021.01.07 2020가단4804