2014 Gohap 508882 Action for payment of piece rates

A

B Stock Company

April 30, 2015

May 28, 2015

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Main and Preliminary, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 5% interest per annum from January 22, 2014 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case; 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; 36,712,00 won interest per annum from July 22, 2014 to the day of complete payment; 40% interest per annum from the day of complete payment; 46,310 won interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; 40% interest per annum from the day of complete payment; 46,310,000 won to the day of complete payment; 40% interest per annum from the day of complete payment to 20% interest per annum; 56,712,00 won to the day of complete payment; 50% interest per annum; 46,310,000 won to the day of complete payment; 5% interest per annum 20,2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as an employee of the Defendant, who runs a financial investment business, was in charge of IB, Tring (transaction of stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc.) as the head of FICC derivatives headquarters within the FICC (bonds, foreign exchange goods, etc.) from April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.

B. The Defendant set the amount of piece rates to be allocated to each business department through the performance measurement of each business quarter in accordance with the performance compensation regulations, and set the rate of piece rates of executives and employees eligible for piece rates according to the performance of each individual of executives and employees within each business department, and then set 20% of the piece rates allocated to the relevant business department in terms of organizational performance rating, and paid the remainder by dividing it into 3 to 5 years under the pretext of deferred performance rating. While the Plaintiff worked as the head of the FICC derivatives, the details of organizational performance rating and deferred performance rating arising from the achievement achieved achieved by the FICC derivatives headquarters are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a resignation notice to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

The defendant is obligated to pay each piece rate stated in the claim amounting to 20%, which is the payment rate of the plaintiff, to the result achieved by the FIC derivatives headquarters while the plaintiff works as the head of FICC derivatives headquarters in accordance with the performance compensation regulations for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's submission of the resignation was inevitable because the defendant, from the beginning of December 2013 to the exclusion of the plaintiff from the approval line, provided the plaintiff with an unfavorable disadvantage to his status and prevents the plaintiff from performing asset management business. Thus, the plaintiff is not voluntarily dismissed from the defendant.

2) Defendant

Since the plaintiff retired from office before the payment date of performance-based bonuses, the defendant is not obligated to pay performance-based bonuses to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 19 (1) of the Performance Compensation Regulations.

B. Determination

1) According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the defendant's performance bonus payment is not made to executives and employees who terminated an employment contract of a person prior to the date of payment under Article 19 (1) 1 of the defendant's Performance Compensation Regulations (hereinafter "the pertinent provision"). The plaintiff submitted a written resignation to the defendant on December 31, 2013, which is the date of payment of piece rate rates, as seen earlier. Thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff submitted a written resignation to the defendant on December 31, 2013 (the testimony of the witness and the statement in subparagraphs A through 7 and C alone cannot be deemed to have submitted a written resignation without the intention of resignation). The defendant has no obligation

2) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant provision is a provision newly established on July 16, 2013, and that it has no effect since it modified the rules of employment disadvantageously without the consent of a majority of the workers.

On July 16, 2013, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant revised the performance compensation regulations including the establishment of the new performance compensation provisions of this case without going through the consent procedure of the workers to whom the performance compensation regulations apply.

However, in principle, it is not permissible for an employer to unilaterally deprive workers of their rights and interests through the revision of the new rules of employment to impose unfavorable working conditions by unilaterally depriving of their rights and interests. However, even if the preparation or revision of the rules of employment in question is considered in both aspects of the necessity and content, if it is recognized that there is a rationality under the generally accepted social norms to the extent that it is possible to recognize the legal norm of the pertinent provision, its application cannot be denied solely on the ground that there is no consent by the collective decision-making method of the workers under the application of the previous rules of employment or the rules of employment. On the other hand, the existence of rationality under the generally accepted social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of disadvantage suffered by the workers due to the revision of the rules of employment, the content and degree of the necessity of the employer's alteration, the reasonableness of the contents of the rules of employment after the amendment, the developments leading to negotiations with trade unions, etc., response to trade unions or other workers, and the domestic general situation on the same kind of matter (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da573622, Jul. 2222,

In this case, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments and arguments as to Gap evidence 2, 3, and 8's testimony, Eul and Eul's testimony, and the fact-finding results with respect to NH Securities Co., Ltd. (i) e.g., performance-based bonus payment system has been deferred for several years, and part of compensation is paid as stocks or connected goods, and its purpose is to reduce compensation postponed in preparation for potential future losses or to preserve them at the time of loss occurrence, which is to prevent the act of arbitrarily retiring after the executives and employees of the financial investment company receiving high performance-based bonuses with pursuing excessive risk. (ii) whether to pay performance-based bonuses to specific executives and employees, the number of payment dates, and the payment dates are entirely the defendant's discretion; (iii) whether to pay performance-based bonuses to the employees and employees of the Financial Investment Service, which are the basis for the enactment and amendment of the performance-based compensation system, can be determined autonomously by the Financial Investment Service's opinion that it is difficult to view that there was a majority of the employees's opinion on retirement performance-based provision.

3) In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the provision of this case compelling workers to remain in office by the date of payment of piece rates in order to avoid any disadvantage that is not paid piece rates, which is contrary to the prohibition of forced labor under Article 7 of the Labor Standards Act, and is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order.

However, Article 7 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "an employer shall not force an employee to work against his/her own free will by means of violence, intimidation, confinement, or any other means that unreasonably restrict his/her own mental or physical freedom." The phrase "other means that unreasonably restrict his/her freedom" refers to a speech that imposes mental and physical restrictions so far as he/she is unable to accept by social norms. According to the above facts of recognition, it is difficult to view the provision of this case as a means of unfairly restricting the worker's freedom to the extent that it is not acceptable by social norms, and it is difficult to view it as a content contrary to good morals and other social order, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From the beginning of December 2013, the Defendant was unable to perform asset management business by excluding the Plaintiff from the approval line, and the Plaintiff’s position to dismiss the Plaintiff from the position of the head of the headquarters, etc. notified the Plaintiff of his status and economic disadvantage, and the Plaintiff submitted a resignation certificate and suffered losses for which the Plaintiff was unable to receive performance rates, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim as compensation for damages caused by the said coercion, which is a

B. Determination

In order to be a declaration of intent by coercion, the other party should have expressed his or her intent to feel fear by notifying unlawful harm and injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da73708, May 13, 2003).

In this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act alleged by the plaintiff was unlawfully threatened with harm and injury, so the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed on the grounds that they are without merit.

The presiding judge's outstanding position

Judge Jeong-hee

Judges Gangwon-do;