(영문) 대법원 2021.1.14.선고 2020다207444 판결

The part of the judgment below on the claim for retirement allowance shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court.

The remaining appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The portion claimed for retirement allowance;

A. In the absence of a precedent of the Supreme Court with respect to the interpretation of statutes applicable to a specific case in a small amount of case, where there are many cases where the interpretation of the same statutes is pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court terminates the case without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes on the grounds that it is a small amount of case, it may undermine the legal stability of people's lives, if the case is concluded without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes. In such a case where there are special circumstances, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," which can be the ground for final appeal for the small amount of case, it may be determined as to the error in the interpretation and application of the substantive law in a way that performs the fundamental function of the Supreme Court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da1878, Aug. 20, 200; 2012Da48824, Mar. 26, 2015).

In the case of a business or place of business that has set up a defined contribution plan, which is at issue in this case, only the amount less than 1/12 of the annual total wage of an employee who is an employer, has been paid to the participant's defined contribution plan account, whether an employee who is the participant may claim the employer for the payment of the difference between the amount directly paid and the amount already paid, and the interest in arrears under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Retirement Benefits Act") after the 14th day from the date of retirement, and if a claim can be made, the method of calculating the shortage of charges is what kind, and there is no precedent of the Supreme Court on the issue of whether a claim for the payment of additional retirement allowance under the retirement benefit scheme can be made, separate from the claim for payment of the shortage charges, and there is a situation in which the lower court'

B. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that, in the case of a business or a place of business established under a defined contribution plan among the retirement benefits scheme under the Retirement Benefits Act, an employer is able to claim the payment of unpaid amount of retirement benefits, and that an employer cannot claim the payment of additional retirement benefits pursuant to the retirement benefits scheme for the unpaid portion of the retirement benefits. The lower court calculated the amount of unpaid retirement benefits according to the calculation method under the retirement benefits scheme (=the average monthly wage of the month prior to the retirement period of the three months) and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim.

C. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(1) The Retirement Benefits Act enacted by Act No. 7379 on January 27, 2005 introduced a retirement benefit plan in addition to the existing retirement benefit scheme in order to enable each workplace to choose a suitable retirement benefit scheme, taking into account the reality of workers’ preference, financial situation of workplace, etc. In accordance with the Retirement Benefits Act, the retirement benefit scheme has a retirement benefit scheme, a defined benefit plan, and a defined contribution plan (Article 2 Subparag. 6), and an employer must establish one or more of the retirement benefit scheme to pay retired workers (Article 4(1)). Of these, an employer who has established a defined contribution plan shall regularly pay, in cash, at least 1/12 of the total annual amount of wages of a participant (Article 20(1) and the former part of Article 20(3)). If an employer fails to pay the contribution within the fixed period of time from the date of payment of the contribution to the account under Article 20(1)4(the latter part of Article 20(3) to the date of payment of the contribution to the insured under the two(3).

On the other hand, a participant who has joined a defined contribution retirement pension plan may pay the additional charges on his/her own in addition to the charges to be borne by the employer pursuant to Article 20(1) (Article 20(2)), and may voluntarily select a method of operating the reserve and change the method of operating the reserve at least once every half year (Article 21(1)). In addition, the participant may request the relevant retirement pension trustee to transfer the operating assets to the account of an individual retirement pension plan created by himself/herself in lieu of the benefits to be paid at the time of retirement (Article 20(6). Upon such request, the retirement pension trustee shall bear the obligation to comply with the request, and if the assets in operation are transferred to the account of an individual retirement pension plan of the participant, the participant shall be deemed to have paid the benefits to the participant in accordance with the operation of the defined contribution retirement pension plan (Article 20(7)), and the participant shall be deemed to have paid the contributions if any cause prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as housing purchase, occurs (Article 21(1)).

In full view of the legislative intent of the Act on Retirement Benefits and the contents of the provisions related to the retirement pension plan at a fixed period of time, the relationship between the retirement benefits plan and the retirement benefits system, etc., in cases where the amount of the charge that an employer has paid every year to a retired participant in a business or place of business that has established a retirement pension plan during a fixed period of time falls short of 1/12 (where the amount of the charge is determined as an amount exceeding 1/12 of the annual total wage, such amount shall be determined as an amount) of the annual total wage, barring any special circumstance, a participant may claim that the employer pay the difference between the amount of his/her own due burden and the amount already paid and the amount of his/her overdue interest prescribed in the Act on Retirement Benefits after the lapse of 14 days from the date of his/her retirement, and may not claim the payment of the additional retirement benefits by a method of calculating the property value of the average wage pursuant to the retirement benefits system. In such cases, the unpaid amount of the retirement benefits plan at a fixed period of time can be calculated in detail.

(2) Examining the reasoning and records of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

The Defendant established a defined contribution retirement pension plan around 2012, and the Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, was admitted to the Plaintiff. From May 2015, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff additional amount corresponding to the wages prescribed in the Retirement Benefits Act, but it appears that the Plaintiff paid only the charges calculated without considering such additional amount as annual total wages, to the Plaintiff’s final contribution to the account of the retirement pension plan. The Plaintiff retired on January 31, 2017, and thereafter thereafter, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 9,880,260 accumulated by the Defendant to its own other account.

was received.

(3) Examining the aforementioned circumstances in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, in the instant case where a defined contribution retirement plan was established, the Defendant, the employer, is obligated to pay the difference between the reasonable amount equivalent to at least 1/12 of the annual total wages and the actual amount of the contributions, and the interest for delay as prescribed by the Retirement Benefit Act, taking into account the additional amount omitted from the object of inclusion of the annual total wages in calculating the amount of the contributions against the Plaintiff, who is the retired insured, as well as the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment thereof. Therefore, the lower court should examine the existence and amount of the unpaid contributions in the final contribution retirement pension plan of this case, and determine

must have been held.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of retirement benefits in the defined contribution retirement pension plan and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, without examining the existence and amount of unpaid contributions according to the calculation method of employer contributions under the defined contribution retirement pension plan.

2. Part concerning claims for wages and annual allowances;

Although the Defendant appealed to the entire judgment of the lower court, this part of the appeal and the final appeal did not indicate specific grounds for objection in the document of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below's claim for retirement allowance is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices