Law Firm Masung (Law Firm Masung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Lee Young-soo

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

Attorney Kim Young-chul et al.

1. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s ordinary wage of job class allowance, monthly suspension allowance, heavy food subsidy, and traffic subsidy constitutes ordinary wage for the job class allowance, monthly suspension allowance, heavy food subsidy, and traffic subsidy that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiffs.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ordinary wages, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The ordinary wages of an internal evaluation grade;

A. The lower court recognized the regular wage as the one-year payment cycle for internal assessment grade B, and determined that it is included in the ordinary wage by recognizing the regular wage rate in that it is paid to all employees, and that it is determined whether to pay the wage or the amount of payment in the pertinent year according to the work performance in the previous year.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept on the following grounds. (1) The determination of the lower court’s determination of whether to pay wages based on the evaluation of the employee’s work performance conducted during the period eligible for payment is generally denied as wages for the period eligible for payment. However, if the lower court’s determination of payment of a certain amount becomes final and conclusive even if the employee’s work performance was rated as the lower level, such minimum wage can be deemed a fixed wage.

Examining the amount of wages paid for the pertinent year according to the worker’s work performance during the pertinent year, if the wage was paid or the amount of wage was fixed during the pertinent year, the wage shall be deemed to be corresponding to the fixed wage. However, even if the wage for which the payment was made based on the evaluation of work performance during the previous year is deemed to have been made in the pertinent year, the fixed wage for the pertinent year may not be recognized if there are special circumstances to deem that the payment was made only for the pertinent year. In this case, even if the wage for the pertinent year was rated as the maximum amount of wage for the pertinent year, it shall be deemed that the fixed amount was paid within the pertinent year’s work performance rating for the pertinent year 10% (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da8939, Dec. 18, 2013). According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records of the public institution’s management performance rating for each of the following year.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. Scope of reversal

The part concerning the claim for overtime work allowances in the judgment of the court of original instance, which recognized the internal evaluation class B as ordinary wage of the pertinent year among the part concerning the defendant's failure, is reversed. Since the court below ordered the payment of the fixed overtime work allowances including other wage items recognized as internal evaluation class and ordinary wage, it is necessary to calculate the amount of overtime work allowances again in light of the above reasons for reversal. Thus, the part against the defendant should be reversed in its entirety.

4. Conclusion

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below 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 Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min You-sook

Justices Noh Tae-ok