2015 combined wages 1822, 23624 (Consolidated Wages)

A

B

April 12, 2017

May 31, 2017

1. The Defendant shall pay the remainder of the Plaintiffs, except for the case of No. 321. C, 529. D, and 587. The Defendant’s Schedule No. 321. C, 529. D, and 587. The sum of the cited amounts for each Plaintiff is as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s Schedule No. 818. Nov. 17, 2016 to the Plaintiffs except for No. 818. E, the separate sheet No. 1. 818. E, the Defendant shall pay 5% per annum from January 19, 2017 to May 31, 2017; and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment to the day of full payment. 2.321. C, 529. D, and 587. The remainder of the Plaintiffs’ claim for the payment of the labor benefits and the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ claim are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the litigation costs, the portion arising between the Defendant and C, 529, D, 587, No. 321, C, 529, D, and 587, [Attachment 1] of the Plaintiff’s List, shall be borne respectively by the relevant Plaintiff’s List C, C, 529, D, and 587, and 2/3 of the remainder incurred between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant shall be borne by the relevant Plaintiffs, and 1/3, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the rest of the plaintiffs except for the plaintiff 1's table Nos. 818. E the amount stated in the "total amount of claims by plaintiff" in the attached table No. 6 of the claim amount table, and to the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the copy of the application for correction of claims as of November 15, 2016 to E of the attached table No. 818. E of the claim amount table No. 6 of the annexed table No. 818 to E, and to pay the money calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the copy of the application for correction of claims as of January 17, 2017 to the next day of the complete payment (the plaintiff and the plaintiff at the beginning, Y, ZG G filed the lawsuit of this case, but the lawsuit was withdrawn during the proceeding of the lawsuit, thereby leaving only the plaintiffs, such as the plaintiff's list No. 1).

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is a juristic person established with the aim of contributing to the promotion of national welfare and the development of the national economy by efficiently conducting projects for supporting workers' lifelong learning and vocational ability development training, and the plaintiffs are employees belonging to the defendant.

B. Provisions concerning the defendant's remuneration and payment of various allowances

The defendant's salary regulations, enforcement rules of the annual salary system, non-standard salary payment rules, and collective agreements concerning this case are as follows:

2. The work shall be calculated from the date of entry into force of a change in the class of duties. 3. Promotion, promotion, or a change in status, the work shall be calculated as of the date of the issuance. 4. Retirement, leave of absence, or death: Provided, That if a member is dismissed from office after having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment, or is dismissed from office due to a disciplinary action, or is dismissed from office without permission, or is dismissed from office as a person for continuous service less than one year, or is dismissed as of the first day of the month, the work shall be calculated. (1) The Corporation shall pay performance rates not less than 100% of the annual salary to the member. (2) The performance rates may be paid differently according to the results calculated in accordance with separate evaluation standards. (1) The Corporation shall pay the extended working hours, night work, or holiday work, at least 150% of the ordinary wages.

The defendant calculated only the basic salary, job allowance, special work allowance, long-term continuous service allowance, food support expense, and traffic support expense, excluding piece rate, selective welfare expense, and household support expense, as ordinary wage. Based on this, the defendant paid the amount calculated as excess work allowance to the plaintiffs. Based on this, the defendant calculated the average wage and paid the retirement allowance.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Although the minimum amount of bonuses paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs, the selective welfare expenses, and household support expenses (hereinafter collectively referred to as “all kinds of allowances of this case”) constitute ordinary wages, the Defendant calculated ordinary wages without excluding them, and paid overtime work allowances, night work allowances, holiday work allowances, holiday work allowances, and annual leave allowances, and thus, ordinary wages should be determined, including various kinds of allowances of this case.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserts that various kinds of allowances in this case do not constitute ordinary wages because they are not remuneration for contractual work, or they do not fall under the ordinary wages due to lack of sunshine or fixedness as follows. (A) piece rates are excluded from ordinary wages under Article 53(2) of the Defendant’s collective agreement. Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Remuneration Regulations provides that “for performance-based incentives and performance-based bonuses” means the amount that is paid differently by individual according to the result of management evaluation, and “the amount of performance-based incentives and performance-based bonuses” means the amount that is paid differently according to the result of management evaluation.

B) Selective welfare expenses are not paid in advance, but are paid later, and the conditions of ex post facto workers’ claim for expenses are fulfilled, and they do not constitute ordinary wages, because they do not have fixedness.

C) Family support costs are paid only to employees in office at a specific point, so they do not constitute ordinary wages because they do not have fixedness.

2) Despite the fact that the Defendant, a public institution, calculates wages, etc. within the limit of total cost pursuant to the Act on the Compilation of Budget of Public Enterprises and Quasi-Governmental Institutions, and excludes various kinds of allowances from ordinary wages, the Plaintiffs’ claim as the instant ordinary wages against the above agreement would result in a serious managerial difficulties to the Defendant, and thus contravene the good faith principle.

3. Determination of ordinary wages

A. Criteria for determination

Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act defines ordinary wages as “the hourly wage, daily wage, weekly wage, weekly wage, monthly wage, monthly wage, or contract amount to be paid to an employee regularly and uniformly for a contractual or entire labor.” Whether a wage falls under ordinary wages shall be determined according to its objective nature on the basis of whether the wage is paid periodically, uniformly, and fixedly to an employee as money and valuables paid for a contractual work, and it shall not be determined by formal standards such as the name of the wage or the length of the payment cycle.

In this context, the term “fixed working hours” refers to money and valuables agreed to be paid by an employer and an employee with respect to the labor ordinarily provided for in contractual work hours. Wages paid in addition to wages paid by an employer by providing labor exceeding contractual work hours or by providing labor other than those prescribed in a labor contract or wages paid without relation to the labor of contractual work hours cannot be deemed as remuneration for contractual work, and thus does not constitute ordinary wages.

The term “regular wage” means that the wage should be continuously paid at a certain interval, and includes not only the uniform payment to all workers, but also the payment to all workers who meet certain conditions or standards. Here, “specified condition” means fixed conditions in light of the concept of ordinary wage intended to calculate fixed and average wages. Considering that ordinary wage is the concept of assessing the value of contractual work, “specified condition or standard” should be met as to the assessment of the value of contractual work, such as the contents of work, technology, and experience. Even if collective agreements or rules of employment stipulate 10 grounds for restriction on the payment of a specific wage for those who are retired or who are to be retired, it is merely a condition that the payment of a fixed wage should be determined in advance on the 9th day, regardless of the individual nature of the worker, and thus, it is difficult to deny the payment of a certain wage on the 9th day, i.e., the fixed wage rate of an employee, regardless of its nature, regardless of its contractual work.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the minimum ordinary wage out of piece rates

Although it can be deemed that the fixedness of wage determined based on the results of work performed by a worker during the period eligible for payment is generally denied, if the minimum amount of wage has been determined, such as where a certain amount of wage is paid even if a certain amount of wage is paid at the lowest level for work performance, the minimum amount of wage can be deemed fixed (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da89399, supra).

Piece rates are classified into special performance rates, self-performance rates, and incentives additional amounts. The piece rates are differentiated based on internal management evaluation within budgetary limits, and even if they receive the lowest grade (D grade), 65% of the monthly amount of basic salary is paid to the defendant's employees as piece rates. Accordingly, even if they receive the lowest grade (D grade), the amount of at least road is guaranteed even if they receive the lowest grade (D grade) in management evaluation, i.e., the amount equivalent to 65% of the monthly amount of the basic salary, which is a fixed wage, constitutes ordinary wages.

2) Determination as to the ordinary wage of selective welfare expenses

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant paid the employee selective welfare expenses each year as one points, and the Defendant’s basic welfare points are recognized as ordinary wages in full view of the following circumstances that are acknowledged as being added to the purport of the entire arguments. The Defendant’s basic welfare points constitute ordinary wages, by evaluating one point as one won, so that workers may freely purchase goods and services, such as food, insurance, film, and lecture, on the website or available enterprise (the same as the settlement price is deducted).

(1) Article 2(1)5 of the Labor Standards Act refers to wages, salaries, and any other money or valuables, regardless of their titles, that an employer pays to an employee as remuneration for work. As such, if certain money or valuables have been paid as remuneration for work, it shall be deemed wages, regardless of their titles, unless there are special circumstances.

1. The Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da26721 Decided December 21, 1995 ruled that “wages” shall be both remuneration for work. The theory of wage division is denied on the premise that “the wages are remuneration for work.” In other words, even if money and valuables are provided as welfare benefits by employers, it cannot be determined that it is not actual remuneration for work. In other words, even if it is money and valuables provided as welfare benefits by employers, it cannot be denied the remuneration for work unless it is clear that it is a beneficial money and valuables, and there is no obligation to pay to an employer, or that it is not related to the volume or quality of work.

③ Although points paid as selective welfare costs are limited to usage, any employee may freely use them within the scope of use, and the Defendant may not interfere with or refuse the settlement of accounts for any use within the scope of use. In other words, in terms of the formation and maintenance of the livelihood of workers, such as the Plaintiffs, the above points do not differ from the actual payment of the pertinent amount in currency. Ultimately, the Defendant’s selective welfare costs were transferred the right to dispose of property benefits corresponding thereto to the payment of the employee’s selective welfare costs, and the ex post facto settlement procedures were only a specific method of use.

Wages, regardless of whether or not an employee has provided a contractual work, which are agreed to be paid only to an employee in office at the payment date or any other specific point of time, are qualified to receive wages during his/her employment at that specific point of time. Such wages are not paid to a person who has provided king labor but does not hold his/her office at that specific point of time. However, if wages are paid under such condition, it is generally paid to a person who is employed at that specific point of time without asking for the contents of the king’s labor. If wages are paid under such condition, it is difficult not only to deem that the employee has the nature of remuneration for the so-called “fixed working hours”, but also if the employee retires on a voluntary day, even if he/she provided his/her labor at that specified point of time, it is uncertain whether the employee was unable to receive the said wages at all, and thus, the payment conditions are fulfilled at the time of providing overtime, night, or holiday work at that specified point of time, and thus, are also lacking fixedness (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da.

Article 17 (4) of the Regulations on the Payment of Non-Standard Wages provides that household support expenses shall be paid in 50% of the monthly amount of the annual salary on the remuneration payment date for employees who hold office as of January, April, June, August, August, and November of each year. According to the above recognition, the household support expenses are paid only if they meet the condition that they are in office as of the payment date of the remuneration, and thus, they cannot be viewed as ordinary wages due to lack of fixedness.

4. Determination on excess duty allowances and retirement allowances payable

A. Determination on the difference between statutory allowances under the Labor Standards Act

As seen earlier, the minimum payment standard (65% of the monthly amount of basic annual salary) and selective welfare expenses are included in ordinary wages. As such, the amount to be received by the Plaintiffs is calculated by deducting the amount already received from the amount of statutory allowances fixed based on ordinary wages, including the above items, based on the ordinary wages. This is as shown in the column of “the difference of overtime allowances” in the attached Table 2. (No dispute exists between the parties regarding such calculation method)

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay each money as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 321, 0, 529, and 587 to the rest of the plaintiffs except for the work-leveld class Nos. 321, 429, 529, and 587, and compensation for delay for the difference in the cost-time allowance in the separate sheet No. 321, 321, 321, 429, 529, and 587, and there is no reason for the defendant to claim the difference in the cost-of-

B. Determination on the claim for difference in retirement pay

[Attachment 1] H 79. H, 95. I, 135. K, 172. K, 246. L, 304. M, 359. N, 380.1, 539. P, 550.* * The above-mentioned difference in statutory allowances that the defendant should receive in advance in paying retirement allowances to the above plaintiffs shall be included in the average wage which is the basis for the calculation of retirement allowances. This is the same as the statement in the column in [Attachment 4 and Attached 8] interim settlement date of retirement allowances, and (the date of interim settlement of retirement allowances or interim settlement date of retirement allowances) is the same as the statement in the column in [Attachment 4 and Attached 8] interim settlement date of retirement allowances, and as the one in [Attachment 8] interim settlement date (the date of retirement allowances)] as the one in [Attachment 3 and Attached 8] settlement date as of 30.21.26.36.

Accordingly, if the difference between retirement allowances to be paid to the above plaintiffs is calculated, it is as follows (no dispute between the above plaintiffs and the defendant as to the calculation method).

Therefore, the defendant's list Nos. 79. H, 135. J, 172 K, 246. M, 304. M, 359.

N, 539. P, 550.** The obligation to pay each money corresponding to the additional retirement pay and any damages for delay thereof to the N, 539. P, 50.* The obligation to pay each money corresponding to the additional retirement pay, and in the case of I, 380, and 0 of the [Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs 1, there is no additional retirement pay, and therefore, the part claiming

5. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of violation of the good faith principle

As seen earlier, the Defendant asserts that the instant claim is against the good faith principle, in a case where various allowances claimed by the Plaintiffs are recognized as ordinary wages, the Defendant is obliged to additionally bear the labor cost of 4 billion won exceeding the Act on the Compilation of Budget of Public Enterprises and Quasi-Governmental Institutions. The Defendant has no profit as a public institution, and there is no profit, and the Defendant has a significant managerial difficulty due to the burden of additional labor cost, and such additional labor cost is ultimately appropriated for the national tax. In light of such circumstances, the instant claim is asserted as contrary to

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant’s fact that the public institution is a public institution, the public institution compiles the budget on the basis of the total labor cost, and the increase in wage within the limit of the total labor cost. However, in a case where the contents of a labor-management agreement, such as a collective agreement, are null and void in violation of the compulsory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, it would result in the elimination of the legislative intent of the compulsory provision, and such assertion cannot be deemed to be contrary to the principle of good faith. However, even if the contents of the labor-management agreement violate the compulsory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, it does not exempt the application of the principle of good faith without exception to the assertion that the labor-management agreement is null and void, on the ground that the labor-management agreement is in violation of the compulsory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da8399, Dec. 18, 2013).

It is difficult to expect that the claim in this case is likely to cause business difficulties to the defendant or endanger corporate existence solely on the above circumstances alleged by the defendant as a public agency, and it is difficult to view that there are special circumstances that give priority to the good faith principle, notwithstanding the compulsory provisions of the Labor Standards Act, by itself on the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 submitted by the defendant. Rather, according to each of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance stipulates that the fund management agency without reserve funds shall manage the ordinary wage reserve fund separately, and the fact that the defendant also includes the increase in the defendant's performance benefits as a reserve fund. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to pay the following amounts: (a) the sum of the cited amounts in [Attachment 2] column to the rest of the Plaintiffs except the Plaintiff’s Schedule Nos. 321.0, 529, and 587; and (b) the remainder of the Plaintiffs except the Plaintiff’s Schedule No. 818, Nov. 15, 2016, following the delivery of a duplicate of the application for amendment of the purport of the claim by November 17, 2016; and (c) [Attachment 818] No. 818, Jan. 17, 2017, from the day following the delivery of a duplicate of the application for amendment of the purport of the claim by the Plaintiff on January 19, 2017 to the day of the annual payment of damages for delay calculated by the Defendant from January 19, 2017 to May 13, 2017, respectively, under the Civil Act.

Therefore, since the remaining plaintiffs' claims except for the work-level class C, 529. D, 587 on Nos. 1 List 321. C, 529. D, 587 are justified within the scope of the above recognition, each of them shall be quoted, and the claims for the work-level class D, 587, No. 321. C, 529. D, 587, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed, and they are so decided as per Disposition.

Judges in the future;

Judge Lee Jong-soo

Judgment of the Prosecutor

1) Attached 1 Plaintiff’s Schedule Nos. 79, 95.1, 135. J, 172. K, 176.1, 304. M, 359. N, 380, 0, 539. P, 550.* * excluding *

The remaining plaintiffs are not indicated in the column of "the retirement allowance difference sheet" in attached Form 6 claim amount table, and they are not deemed to claim the retirement allowance difference.