[임금][집49(1)민,166;공2001.4.15.(128),751]
[1] Whether the retirement allowance of the chief executive officer of community credit cooperatives constitutes the wage under the Labor Standards Act (negative)
[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the case constitutes "a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act
[1] Officers, such as directors, etc. who have management authority of a corporation, are delegated by the company with certain administrative affairs (see Article 382(2) of the Commercial Act). Thus, even in the case of receiving a certain amount of wages, they shall not be deemed wages under the Labor Standards Act, and even in the case of paying a retirement allowance to an officer such as a director, etc. under the company's regulations, the said retirement allowance is not a retirement allowance under the Labor Standards Act, but a kind of remuneration paid for the performance of duties while in office. Meanwhile, Article 24 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act provides that the provisions of Article 382(2) of the Commercial Act that apply mutatis mutandis to the delegation of duties to a corporation and a director shall apply mutatis mutandis again to the officers of community credit cooperatives. Thus, the retirement allowance of the chief
[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the premise that the retirement benefits of the chief executive of a community credit cooperative are wages under the Labor Standards Act is binding as precedents on the retirement allowances of the chief executive of the community credit cooperative. Thus, the judgment of the court below on the premise that the retirement benefits of the chief executive of the community credit cooperative are wages under the Labor Standards Act constitutes "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims
[1] Article 36 (1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) (see current Article 42 (1)), Articles 382 (2) and 388 of the Commercial Act, Article 686 of the Civil Act, Article 24 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act / [2] Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2268 delivered on June 14, 198 (Gong1988Ha, 1023) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da10945 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3244)
Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Dong-dong Saemaul Community Fund (Law Firm Hanwon, Attorneys Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul District Court Decision 2000Na1784 Delivered on October 6, 2000
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.
The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the instant claim seeking the payment of retirement allowance against the Defendant, even if the Plaintiff transferred his/her claim to the Defendant, on the ground that the principle of direct payment of wages under Article 36(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309, Mar. 13, 1997) is applicable to the payment of wages, and thus, the transferee cannot claim the payment of wages against the employer. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot claim the payment of the retirement allowance against the Defendant.
However, the Supreme Court held that an officer, such as a director with a corporation's executive authority, is delegated to handle certain affairs by the company (see Article 382 (2) of the Commercial Act), so it is not an employment relationship under the employer's supervision, and therefore, even if a certain amount of remuneration is paid, it shall not be deemed as wages prescribed in the Labor Standards Act. In a case where a retirement allowance is paid to an officer such as a director, etc. under the company's regulations, the retirement allowance is not a retirement allowance under the Labor Standards Act, but a kind of remuneration paid in compensation for the performance of duties while in office (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu268, Jun. 14, 198). Meanwhile, Article 24 of the former Community Credit Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 5462, Dec. 17, 1997) which applies to the Plaintiff's treasury, which stipulates that the provisions concerning delegation of duties to an officer of a community credit cooperative shall apply mutatis mutandis to the relationship between the company and the director, and therefore, it is in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)