logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.09.25 2016다209986
임금
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) are assessed against.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If an employer to determine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointeds) intends to constitute wages, the money and valuables should first be paid as the employee’s work. Thus, even if the money and valuables were paid continuously and periodically, if it cannot be deemed that they were paid as the employee’s work, it cannot be deemed as wages.

In determining which money and valuables are paid for work, the occurrence of the duty to pay money and valuables must be directly related to the provision of labor or closely related to the provision of labor.

(2) The lower court determined that the instant welfare points allocated to the Plaintiff (appointed parties) and the designated parties each year cannot be deemed as ordinary wages for contractual work, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, in cases where the employer continuously and periodically allocated welfare points that can be used by means of purchasing goods at an employee-only online shopping site, based on collective agreement employment rules, etc., to employees under the selective welfare program that voluntarily selects and receives welfare benefits according to the worker’s own preference and needs, among various welfare items. In such cases, where the employer continuously and regularly allocated welfare points that can be used by means of purchasing goods at the employee-only online shopping site, etc., such welfare points do not constitute wages under the Labor Standards Act, and do not constitute ordinary wages (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da48785, Aug. 22, 2019).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ordinary wages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. The instant bonus does not constitute ordinary wages.

arrow