Whether a demand for bonus corresponding to the period of service of a retired worker before the date of payment of bonus is made (affirmative)

If bonuses are paid on a regular basis and the amount of payment is determined, it shall not be deemed as the same as the temporary payment under the proviso of Article 36 (2) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it shall be deemed as having the nature of the regular daily payment. Therefore, even a retired employee before the expiration of the bonus payment period, barring special circumstances, may claim for the payment of the bonus for the period of service

Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff 1 and 47 Plaintiffs, Attorneys Lee Jae-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea General Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na653 delivered on March 27, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

(1) According to the provisions of Article 36(2) of the Labor Standards Act, wages are categorized as wages paid on a fixed date not less than once a month, other than those subject to the so-called principle of regular payment, extraordinary wages are paid on a fixed date, and under Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, the fixed-time allowance paid on a fixed period exceeding one month, the continuous work allowance paid on a continuous period exceeding one month, the promotional wage calculated on a ground exceeding one month, the efficiency allowance or bonus, 4) and other irregular payment allowances, which are paid on a fixed period exceeding one month. Such a provisional payment is limited to the temporary or uncertain nature of the ground for payment, and it does not constitute a regular payment and the amount determined on a fixed basis even if it is paid under the name of bonus.

(2) According to the facts established by the court below, although bonus allowances are paid according to the standards for payment determined by the president based on individual work performance, the defendant company, in fact, has paid regular bonus equivalent to 150 percent of the monthly ordinary wage and incentives bonus equivalent to 100 percent of the monthly ordinary wage (hereinafter referred to as both bonuses) to its employees at the end of June and the end of December each year, and according to this, it is clear that the bonus in this case has been paid regularly because the amount has been determined regardless of its name, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as the same as the temporary payment under the proviso of Article 36 (2) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

If so, even if a worker retires before the expiration of six months as bonus payment period, it is reasonable in light of the fact that the bonus corresponding to the number of months already worked can be claimed as compensation for work, unless otherwise specified by the special group, the regular daily wage is paid at least once a month.

(3) However, according to the records, although the president of the defendant company to whom the determination of bonus payment standards under the rules on remuneration of the defendant company was delegated, he/she is found to have given each quarter the payment criteria as to the person who is in office as of the last day of June or the last day of December, it is difficult to view that this payment criteria has not been only limited to the meaning that the full amount of the bonus payment is to be paid to the person who is in office as of the last day of June or the last day of December, and otherwise, it is also difficult to view that it is also stipulated that the payment criteria should not be paid to the person who has been continuously engaged in six months during the period of the payment.

(4) Ultimately, the court below is just in holding that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiffs who retired prior to the payment date of bonus the amount equivalent to the number of months already worked among the bonuses of the half-year (six-month) to which the plaintiffs retired, and the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have any significant violation of the justice and equity. Thus, the argument is groundless.

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)