Shin-a Law, Attorney Shin Jae-han et al.

Attorney Song Jin-jin, Attorney Park Jin-hee, Lee Jin-hee, Lee Jin-hee

1. The principle of trust and good faith (hereinafter “the principle of trust and good faith”) refers to an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship shall not exercise a right or perform an obligation in a manner that violates the principle of trust and good faith, taking into account the other party’s interest. In order to deny the exercise of the right on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, it should be given to the other party or objectively deemed that the other party has a good faith, and the exercise of the right against the other party’s good faith should reach such a level that is unreasonable in light of the concept of justice.

If the contents of a labor-management agreement, such as a collective agreement, are null and void in violation of the Labor Standards Act, it is rejected on the ground that it is an exercise of a right contrary to the good faith principle. On the other hand, the legislative intent of the labor-management agreement, which is stipulated as a compulsory provision, is unreasonable, and such assertion is not in violation of the good faith principle. However, the labor-management agreement cannot be deemed as being in violation of the good faith principle. However, on the ground that the contents of the labor-management agreement violate the compulsory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, the application of the good faith principle is not excluded without exception to the assertion on the invalidation of the labor-management agreement. Not only is it necessary to satisfy the general requirements for applying the good faith principle but also it is not permissible to assert the

Under the premise that a regular bonus in a labor-management agreement does not per se constitute ordinary wages, in cases where the labor-management agreement agrees to exclude a regular bonus from the standard for calculating ordinary wages and setting wage level on the premise thereof, an employee’s employer is entitled to add a regular bonus to ordinary wages and seek additional statutory allowances based on the aforementioned premise, thereby causing serious managerial difficulties or endanger the existence of an enterprise, thereby remarkably contrary to good faith in light of the concept of justice and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399, Dec. 18, 2013): Provided, that determination whether to apply the principle of good faith prior to the compulsory provisions governing labor relations, rather than

In addition, the legislative intent of the Labor Standards Act, such as the Labor Standards Act that guarantees and improves the basic life of workers by setting the minimum standard of working conditions, should be sufficiently considered. Moreover, the management status of a company is an employer, and the company may change from time to time according to various economic and social circumstances inside and outside the company. As such, if a claim for additional legal allowances due to the re-determination of ordinary wages is rejected on the grounds that it causes serious managerial difficulties or it may endanger the existence of the company, the risk resulting from the management of the company may actually lead to

Therefore, whether a worker’s demand for additional legal allowances violates the good faith principle should be determined carefully and strictly as it causes serious managerial difficulties to the employer or may endanger the existence of the company (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da217287, Feb. 14, 2019).

2. Examining the following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it cannot be readily concluded that the payment of additional statutory allowances by including regular bonuses would cause serious managerial difficulties to the Defendant or endanger the existence of the company. Therefore, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s claim for additional statutory allowances is contrary to the good faith principle.

A. If a regular bonus is included in ordinary wages, the lower court calculated the statutory allowance to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties in total by KRW 72,732,948 in total, 201, and KRW 72,732,948 in total, 23,149,01,01, and KRW 49,583,930 in total, 2012, and estimated the amount to be additionally borne by the Defendant based on approximately 100 drivers of the Defendant’s driving workers as KRW 110,23,419 in total, KRW 236,113,952 in total. However, in order to determine whether a regular bonus is included in ordinary wages and causes serious managerial difficulties to the Defendant by paying additional statutory allowances, etc., the part for which the extinctive prescription has already been completed should be specified, except for the part for which the extinctive prescription has already been completed. However, the Defendant did not assert and prove any assertion on the total amount, such as additional statutory allowances.

B. The Defendant’s transportation revenue has an annual trend of increase, and since 2010, the applicant recorded a black person with net income, and the earned surplus has also been continuously increased and exceeds KRW 1 billion in 2014. The Defendant’s debt amount is not less than KRW 4 billion as of 2014, but it has been reduced since 2009, which began to operate the Defendant by acquiring the Defendant’s shares.

D. The Defendant should pay a large amount of the cost of replacing a bus in the future, and the burden of vehicle insurance premiums each year is increasing, but it seems that considerable portion of the cost is compensated due to the application of the bus completion system.

E. According to the reasoning of the court below, even if a regular bonus is included in ordinary wages, the ordinary wage of the employee employed by the defendant is considerably increased compared to the agreed ordinary wage, and the total wage to be paid by the defendant may be a new financial burden that was not initially predicted, in light of the amount of additional statutory allowances or the financial situation of the defendant, etc., such circumstance cannot be a sufficient ground to deem that the payment of additional statutory allowances would cause a serious managerial difficulties directly to the defendant or endanger the existence of the company.

3. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for additional statutory allowances, solely based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, including the Defendant’s financial status, is not permissible as it violates the good faith principle. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the good faith principle, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Gin-soo

A person shall be appointed.