As shown in the attached list of plaintiffs (Attorney Cho Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Medical Center (A&S Law Firm, Attorneys Cho Young-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 26, 2016

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap79776 Decided January 14, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from November 1, 2013 to the judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, as stated in the claim amount amount by plaintiff and the prize amount table by the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the lower court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the following: (a) the first instance judgment No. 10, the first instance judgment No. 11, the first instance judgment No. 11, the first instance judgment No. 11, the first instance judgment No. 14, and the second through No. 13, the first instance judgment No. 21, the second through No. 14, the second instance judgment No. 13, the second instance judgment No. 420, the second instance judgment No.

2. Welfare points;

A. The Defendant’s employees, including the Plaintiffs, allocated and paid a certain amount of welfare points to the employees of the Defendant (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) each year, but the amount of welfare points shall be calculated on a daily basis according to the service period of the pertinent year for those retired or those retired during the pertinent year, and the amount allocated to the new employees by July 2012 for those employed during the first half of the year shall be paid in January of the following year, and the employee in the second half of the year shall be paid in January of the following year, and the employee in the second half of the year shall be allocated and paid by calculating the service period on a daily basis except for those employed in December 2013, the Plaintiffs may use welfare points by purchasing goods or settling service charges through online or welfare franchise businesses using the welfare card. The fact that the Plaintiffs may use welfare points in a wide range of business, such as travel, health care, and cultural life, other than those subject to certain limitations, and that welfare points not used by the Plaintiffs in the pertinent year are settled in cash or carried forward to the following year is not carried forward.

B. The following facts and circumstances revealed in full view of the purport of the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed as a whole, i.e., (i) wages constitute remuneration for work, i.e., remuneration for actual labor even if it constitutes remuneration for work; (ii) money and valuables paid under the employer’s welfare name can not be denied labor remuneration unless it is clear that it is a beneficial money and valuables, or there is no obligation to pay wages or there is no relation to the amount of work or quality; and (iii) the Defendant allocated and paid welfare points to all employees who provide labor including temporary retirees and retired workers in the pertinent year in proportion to the working period of the pertinent year (i.e., calculation of the period of work for the retired worker, the period of work for the retired worker, and the number of new employees in December, 12; (iii) it is reasonable to deny the ordinary wage by considering that welfare points are inevitable for settlement of accounts and deposited money, or that welfare points are not carried over to the following year, which constitutes a restriction on the Plaintiffs’ right to use welfare points for the pertinent year’s own account and payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of violating the principle of good faith

(a) Relevant legal principles;

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 would result in denying the legislative intent of the labor-management agreement on the ground that it is an exercise of rights in violation of the good faith principle. Therefore, such assertion cannot be deemed as a violation of the good faith principle. However, the assertion of invalidity of a labor-management agreement cannot be permitted as violating the good faith principle, only in exceptional cases where the general requirement for applying the good faith principle is met, despite the existence of the compulsory provisions stipulated in the Labor Standards Act. For instance, the increase of wages is clearly determined on the basis of the profit that the company is able to obtain by producing and selling activities, etc., and the width of wage increase is determined based on the total wage payment limit and total wage increase. Considering the current status of Korea’s general wage negotiations, including bonuses and various legal allowances, which would result in an employer’s failure to reach an agreement on the grounds that the bonuses do not constitute ordinary wage in itself, and thus, it is unreasonable for the employer to have agreed to exclude the amount of wage from the labor-management’s wage level.

B. Determination

The following facts or circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire argument in the statement of the above evidence and evidence No. 12, namely, ① the defendant is a special corporation established by Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is a local government, under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Local Medical Centers (hereinafter “Local Medical Centers Act”), unlike general companies whose existence and the scale of profit-making acquisition depending on limited financial resources depending on competition in the market. However, there is no legal ground to preferentially protect the defendant when paying statutory allowances under the Labor Standards Act, unlike ordinary private companies. ② Under special circumstances where the need for legitimate and proper performance of duties is actively requested, such as the payment of legislative allowances under the Labor Standards Act, ② it is difficult to change the budget with the approval of the head of a local government based on Article 16 of the Local Medical Centers Act, or there is a flexible disbursement such as receiving subsidies from the State or local governments based on Article 17 of the Local Medical Centers Act, ③ there is no possibility that regular allowances are not included in ordinary wages and thus, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs’ claim for the above legal allowances is more likely to be included in the Plaintiffs’ wage level than the above.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)