2016Da276672 Wages

person

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11. K;

12. L.

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

0 The System

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

Attorney Park J-jin, Kim Jong-young, the sole, Lee In-sea, the sole, the highest iron

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Na14286 Decided November 28, 2016

February 27, 2020

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that bonus allowances paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs were not included in ordinary wages.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the daily rate and fixedness requirement of ordinary wages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

1) If an employer’s money and valuables paid to an employee constitute wages, the said money and valuables should first be paid as remuneration for work. Thus, even if such money and valuables were continuously and regularly paid, if such money and valuables cannot be deemed to have been paid as remuneration for work, it constitutes wages. Here, in determining whether certain money and valuables were paid as remuneration for work, the occurrence of the obligation to pay money and valuables should be deemed to have been directly related to, or closely related to, the provision of labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da55934, May 12, 1995; 201Da23149, Jul. 14, 2011).

In a case where an employer implements a selective welfare program under which an employee receives welfare benefits by voluntarily choosing welfare benefits according to his/her own preference and needs among various welfare items, and where welfare points that can be used by purchasing goods at an employee-only online shopping site are continuously and regularly allocated to employees based on collective agreements, employment rules, etc., such welfare points do not constitute wages under the Labor Standards Act, and as a result, do not constitute ordinary wages (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da48785, Aug. 22, 2019).

2) Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A) The Defendant shall prepare a selective welfare program in accordance with the welfare regulations, and double the employees to individuals.

The selective welfare program has been implemented to select welfare items, etc. according to the preference and needs of individuals within the prescribed budget.

B) The Defendant’s employees were paid a total of the points allocated each year by dividing the points, which are the costs for purchasing the primary selective welfare items into basic points, continuous service points, etc.

C) The Defendant’s employees used part of the points allocated to group insurance policy, and purchased goods or services in accordance with items such as health care, self-development, cultural leisure, home-friendliness, livelihood security, etc. using welfare cards, and received the purchase price by applying for the points deduction.

D) The Defendant’s employees may not carry over points remaining after use in the pertinent year to the following year or claim in cash.

3) Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, welfare points allocated by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs do not constitute wages under the Labor Standards Act, and do not constitute ordinary wages. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that welfare points allocated annually by the Defendant constituted ordinary wages. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the nature of welfare points’ ordinary wages, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to Article 2 of the Reasons for Appeal, a labor contract that a company concluded with an employee constitutes an auxiliary commercial activity, the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act shall apply to the claim for wages under such labor contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1381, Apr. 27, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and the fact that the defendant is a public corporation established pursuant to the Local Public Enterprises Act that carries out profit-making business, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of damages for delay, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Scope of reversal

Ultimately, among the part against the Defendant in the lower judgment, the part of the claim for unpaid wages calculated by recognizing welfare points as ordinary wages ought to be reversed. The lower court should reverse the part against the Defendant, on the grounds that it is necessary to calculate the total amount of unpaid wages and damages for delay, given that it is necessary to calculate the total amount of accrued wages and the amount of accrued wages by reflecting the purport of the above reversal, as it is necessary to calculate the amount of unpaid wages and damages for delay.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiffs’ final appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Jong-il

Justices Park Il-san

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for the defendant