Whether welfare points allocated continuously and regularly to workers based on collective agreements, rules of employment, etc. when implementing the selective welfare program falls under wages and ordinary wages prescribed in the Labor Standards Act (negative)

[Majority Opinion] 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 money and valuables were paid continuously and regularly, if such money and valuables cannot be deemed as being paid as remuneration for work, it cannot be deemed as wages. In determining whether money and valuables were paid as remuneration for work, the occurrence of the obligation to pay money and valuables should be deemed as directly related to, or closely related to, the provision of labor.

Even if an employer implements a selective welfare program and allocates welfare points that can be used as a method of purchasing goods at an employee-only online shopping site to employees on a continuous and regular basis 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.

[Concurring Opinion by Justice Kim Jae-hyung] The issue of whether an employer’s money and valuables paid to an employee constitutes wages is determined depending on whether such money and valuables are paid as remuneration for work, and this does not uniformly exclude the characteristic of wages from the perspective of welfare. The Labor Standards Act comprehensively defines “all money and valuables paid by an employer to an employee” and states that the name does not affect the determination of whether such money and valuables are wages. Accordingly, the name of “welfare” does not interfere with the determination of whether such money and valuables are wages. Welfare points do not change.

Considering the nature of welfare points that have the nature of online electronic settlement means, the method of use, and the relationship between the settlement of accounts, the employer may assess the series of processes in which the employee allocates welfare points to the employee and uses welfare points as wages. It is reasonable to view that the legal relationship between the employer and the employee regarding welfare points is the relationship between the employer and the

[Dissenting Opinion by Justice Park Sang-ok, Justice Park Jung-hwa, Justice Kim player-soo, and Justice Kim Yong-hwan] (1) Welfare points that are continuously and regularly allocated to an employer on the basis of collective agreements or rules of employment, etc. are money and valuables paid as compensation for work.

② It cannot be said that money and valuables are not money and valuables, or that the allocation thereof is not a payment of money and valuables, on the ground that welfare points are limited in their availability. It accords with the substance of deeming that the right to dispose of property profits equivalent thereto, depending on the allocation of welfare points by the employer, has been transferred to

③ It is unreasonable to interpret that the provision on the Framework Act on Labor Welfare is based on the fact that welfare points are not wages under the Labor Standards Act, or to derive the conclusion that it is difficult to affirm the nature of wages on the basis of such a provision.

④ In light of the progress of the selective welfare program and the current status of its operation, the wage nature of welfare points may not be denied.

(5) Even if welfare points are recognized as wages, they do not go against the wage-related system or the principle of wage payment under the Labor Standards Act, and thus unfair results arise in relation to the employer’s criminal punishment, or the application of the Labor Standards Act may not

6) It is desirable to recognize the nature of wages and ordinary wages from a macroscopic and future-oriented perspective, namely, improvement of the wage system and legal stability at the labor site.

Articles 2(1)5 and 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act; Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act; Articles 1, 3(1), 81, and 82 of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare

Supreme Court Decision 94Da55934 Decided May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 211) Supreme Court Decision 201Da23149 Decided July 14, 2011 (Gong2011Ha, 1621)

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

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

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na3364 decided October 12, 2016

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Case history

A. The Defendant is a special corporation established by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the purpose of treating the Defendant. The Plaintiffs are workers employed by the Defendant, who are engaged in the duties of nurses, physical therapy technicians, radiation specialists, clinical pathology, etc.

B. The Defendant implemented a system that allows executives and employees, including the Plaintiffs, to select and enjoy the welfare items and the level of benefits they want among various welfare benefits designed in advance within the extent of welfare points allocated to each individual (hereinafter “instant selective welfare program”), pursuant to the Guidelines for Operation of the Selective Welfare Program, and granted certain welfare points (hereinafter “instant welfare points”) to the Plaintiffs each year.

As of the end of the previous year, the Defendant allocated the common points that are uniformly granted to employees on January 1 of the corresponding year and the continuous service points that are granted according to the number of years of service to employees on the basis of the common points and the number of years of service, and paid in equal installments in January (the first half and the second half of the corresponding year) and July (the second half of the corresponding year). With respect to new employees, a half of the amount allocated to the first half of the pertinent year shall be paid in July by 2012, and from January of the following year, a half of the amount allocated to the first half of the relevant year shall be paid to the new employees, and from December 2013, a member of the second half of the year was paid in January of the following

The Plaintiffs directly use the allocated welfare points when purchasing goods, etc. at the Internet welfare center, which is an online shopping site exclusive for Defendant employees, or preferentially purchase goods, etc. from the Internet welfare center or the welfare card, and then apply for the use of welfare points, thereby receiving a refund of the money equivalent to the welfare points.

Meanwhile, the instant welfare points are extinguished if they were not used by December 20 each year, and the items to be used are also limited.

C. Under the premise that the instant welfare points are excluded from ordinary wages, the Defendant calculated overtime allowance, etc. and paid it to the Plaintiffs.

D. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant welfare points, etc. constitute ordinary wages, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming the difference between the instant welfare points, etc. and the overtime allowances, etc., which are once again calculated by including the instant welfare points in ordinary wages.

E. The lower court partially accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim by deeming the instant welfare points constituted ordinary wages.

2. Case principal issues and statutory provisions

A. The major issues of the case

The issue is whether welfare points in the instant case constitute ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act, and the main issue is whether welfare points in the instant case constitute wages under the Labor Standards Act.

B. Provisions of the statute

Article 2 (Definitions of Labor Standards Act)

(1) The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

5. The term "wages" means wages, salary and any other kind of money or valuables, regardless of their titles, which an employer pays to a worker as remuneration for work;

Article 6 (Ordinary Wages)

(1) For the purpose of the Act and this Decree, the term "ordinary wage" means hourly wage, daily wage, weekly wage, monthly wage, or contract amount to be paid to a worker for a prescribed labor or the total labor on a regular and uniform basis.

3. Whether the instant welfare points recognized the wage nature and ordinary wage nature (ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2)

A. 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 the money and valuables were paid continuously and regularly, if such money and valuables were not considered to have been paid as remuneration for work, it cannot be deemed as 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).

B. Even in cases where the employer implemented the selective welfare program and allocated welfare points that can be used to purchase goods on an employee-only online shopping site as in the instant case to workers on a continuous and regular basis 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. The reasons are as follows.

1) In light of the relevant statutes and regulations of the selective welfare program, welfare points may not be deemed wages.

The selective welfare program, which serves as the premise for welfare points, is prescribed in the Framework Act on Labor Welfare. The Framework Act on Labor Welfare regulates selective welfare program under Section 3 of Chapter III “corporate workers’ welfare.” However, the Framework Act on Labor Welfare stipulates, “The purpose of the Framework Act is to improve workers’ quality of life and contribute to the balanced development of the national economy by prescribing matters necessary for the establishment of workers’ welfare policies and the implementation of welfare programs,” and in particular, Article 3(1) of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare explicitly excludes wages from the concept of workers’ welfare by stipulating that “workers’ welfare policies (excluding basic working conditions, such as wages and working hours; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall not expand workers’ opportunities to participate in economic and social activities.” Ultimately, it is reasonable to interpret that welfare points based on selective welfare program that constitutes workers’ welfare under the Framework Act on Labor

Of course, it is reasonable to discuss whether welfare points are wages or not from the perspective of the Labor Standards Act. However, when determining whether welfare points are wages, it is reasonable to determine whether welfare points are wages in a standardized manner by considering the relevant laws and regulations sufficiently. It is clear that the legislators’ basic rules on the selective welfare program, which can be seen from the provisions of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare, are based on the fact that welfare points are not wages, and this is an important reason why it is difficult

2) It is difficult to regard welfare points as wages in light of the history of the selective welfare program and the background leading up to its introduction.

A) The selective welfare program first launched in the U.S. is a new system that changes the traditional corporate welfare or corporate welfare system. If the traditional welfare system in the past was designed to consider an average standard-type employee and such employee is considered necessary, and if an employee is provided benefits when the situation prescribed by such system occurs, the selective welfare program is different in terms of the content or the level of benefits available on the basis of the employee’s choice, and is also new one. The selective welfare program introduced by our legal system and business practice is not entirely started for the increase or preservation of the employee’s wages, but rather for the establishment of a new corporate welfare system that reflects the employee’s needs in relation to the employee’s welfare program, rather than for the increase or preservation of the employee’s wages. Ultimately, in light of these history, it is unreasonable to interpret welfare points under the selective welfare program as wages ex post facto.

B) In practice of labor-management relations, it is difficult to deny that the previous corporate welfare system was operated by the method of uniformly paying money to workers by creating various welfare allowances items and uniformly paying money to workers. However, the selective welfare system is a new modification of the corporate welfare system by limiting the place of use of welfare points to fit welfare and granting the possibility of settling accounts after the employee’s expenditure so that welfare can be achieved in accordance with the worker’s preference and needs. In other words, it is not desirable to interpret welfare points as wages even if considering the detailed developments leading up to such specific introduction of the selective welfare system, it is not desirable to interpret welfare points as wages.

3) Comprehensively considering the following circumstances, welfare points cannot be deemed as remuneration for the provision of labor.

A) Due to the intent of the selective welfare program and the unique characteristics of the background leading up to its introduction, welfare points are limited to use due to travel, health care, cultural life, and self-development, etc., and, in general, they are not carried over within one year without being used, and there is no possibility of transfer. As such, welfare points have many characteristics that are inappropriate for the assessment of wages, which are used as a basis for livelihood, paid by workers as remuneration for work,

B) In addition, welfare points are normally allocated at the beginning of each year, irrespective of the employee’s provision of labor. In our labor-management reality, these forms of wages are difficult to find easily. It is a circumstance that it should not be understood as a simple characteristic of welfare points, and it can be understood as an active symbol that is not a remuneration for work.

C) In addition, most cases where welfare points are not indicated as “compensation” or “wages” in collective agreements, rules of employment, etc. with respect to individual businesses adopting the selective welfare program. It can be concluded that the parties in the labor relationship also recognize that welfare points are not remuneration for work. If the Ministry of Employment and Labor does not reflect welfare points in the rate of increase in the Convention’s wage established and published each year, it can be indirectly inferred that the government does not recognize welfare points as wages.

C. Meanwhile, the view that affirms the nature of wages in the instant welfare points and considers the allocation of welfare points as the payment of wages is that the payment of wages is made only on the basis that welfare points have been allocated in the absence of the employer’s payment for the settlement of accounts or the employee’s economic benefits. Accordingly, there is a problem as follows.

1) The allocation of welfare points itself cannot be evaluated as “payment” of money and valuables.

A) The legal relationship between an employer and an employee surrounding welfare points means that an employer compensates for the employee’s expenditure within a certain limit when the employee purchases goods, etc. in accordance with the limited usage and method of employment. The rights and obligations between the parties above are prescribed by collective agreements or rules of employment, etc., and the actual payment therefrom is only made when the employer makes a contribution to compensate for the employee’s expenditure. The employer’s allocation of a certain amount of welfare points to an employee based on collective agreements or rules of employment is merely the employer’s factual act confirming that the employee is obligated to make the final payment when the employee purchases goods, etc. using welfare points or welfare cards as much as the amount of welfare points allocated to the employee.

The employee, when using a welfare card in accordance with the purpose and period of use prescribed in the collective agreement or the rules of employment, receives the amount of money equivalent to welfare points deducted from the employer, or receives the amount of welfare points from the issuing company, etc. from the company that issued the welfare card. On the other hand, the employee may purchase goods, etc. on an employee-only online shopping site without using a welfare card. However, the employee’s act of directly paying the purchase of goods, etc. at the employee-only online shopping site that is unilaterally prepared by the employer is limited to the employee-only online shopping site, and the employee may freely use welfare points to the extent that they are equal to or similar to the currency. The employee may not purchase goods using welfare points if the said shopping site is closed or does not function properly. Ultimately, the employee’s act of directly paying the purchase of goods, etc. at the employee-only online shopping site can only be evaluated as having the employee-only method of using welfare points without deducting the amount of money and other valuables from the employee-only online shopping site.

As can be seen, the employer’s act of allocating welfare points does not mean that the employee gains actual benefits, but rather does not mean that the employer has paid money and valuables to the employee. Ultimately, it cannot be evaluated that the allocation of welfare points was made by deeming that the payment of money and valuables was made to the employee. For instance, on the ground that the employee who already concluded the employment contract on the annual salary system that requires the employee to receive KRW 36 million per year, re-introspects that the employee would pay KRW 36 million per year as annual salary, the said KRW 36 million to the employee at that time cannot be deemed to have been paid as wages. The allocation of welfare points is no different from this.

B) Even if there is an agreement between the parties to an in personam legal relationship by establishing a virtual subject matter, such as welfare points, at the stage prior to reaching the settlement of their obligations, and finally resolving the relationship through the two stages of benefits, the essence of the legal relationship is not changed. Of course, this is limited to cases where the subject matter of intermediate benefits is solely meaningful between the parties concerned. In other words, examining the legal relationship surrounding welfare points, an employer bears the duty to make a final payment within a given period of time when the employees purchase goods, etc. in the future, but allocates the process of payment by dividing it into two stages, with priority, and then, to perform the duty to pay the purchase goods, etc., by taking account of the fact that the employer arranged for the intermediate payment of welfare points, and the fact that the employer allocated welfare points does not change in the essence of the duty to pay to the employees. This is distinguishable from the case where the employer establishes and pays the subject matter of selective payment between the parties concerned as part of an employer’s selective act.

Furthermore, without the term “welfare points”, the legal relationship surrounding welfare points between the employer and the employee may be explained legally and practically. For example, in the case of a workplace where welfare points that have the value of 700,000 won under the collective agreement or rules of employment are prescribed to be allocated to the employees each year, the employer is obligated to pay the employees the purchase price for the goods used in line with the purpose and period within the limit of 70,000 won. In the case where the employees purchased the goods using welfare points 300 points, the employer is obligated to pay the purchase price for the goods of 30,000 won by means of direct payment to the employees. In short, welfare points are merely equivalent to the virtual figures introduced to facilitate verbal expressions, and it is difficult to say that there is a legally significant substance.

C) It is unreasonable to evaluate the allocation of welfare points as the payment of wages in the following respect.

It is difficult to find out that the employer has already paid wages even if the employer has consistently applied the allocation of welfare points to the wage points that correspond to the annual wage amount as agreed upon between the employee and the employer at the beginning of each year after preferentially allocating the monthly wage to the employee, and at the same time deducting the monthly wage corresponding to the monthly wage paid at the time of providing the employee’s monthly wage. If the logic that deeming the allocation of welfare points as the payment of wages is applied to such wage points, it is difficult to find it difficult to find out the view that the allocation of wage points would be evaluated as the payment of wages even if it is not paid in currency by the employer but by allocating the wage points that are not conceptualized in the previous stage. However, it is difficult to find out the view that the allocation of welfare points would be evaluated as the payment of wages. However, in the above wage points system, it is unreasonable to view that the allocation of welfare points would be deducted if the employee provided only the agreed work and receive money corresponding thereto. Moreover, in the welfare points system, it is unreasonable to deem the allocation of wages as the result of the allocation of wages.

D) Therefore, it is not reasonable to evaluate the allocation of welfare points, which are merely an act of recognizing the obligation as above, as payment of money and valuables to the employee by the employer, as well as the fact that the unpaid money and valuables have been already paid, and it is difficult to find the grounds even in civil law.

2) According to the view that recognizing the nature of welfare points as wages and deeming that money and valuables have been paid with the allocation of welfare points, if welfare points are allocated, the application of the Labor Standards Act on wage claims is excluded, and thereafter, it is unreasonable to view that welfare points are paid with the allocation of welfare points as wages.

In cases where an employer stipulates that the amount of welfare points paid directly to an employee is deducted from the amount of welfare points paid in relation to the employee’s welfare cards in a collective agreement or rules of employment, etc., if the allocation of welfare points is completed, the employer’s monetary claims against the employee may not be deemed as wages claims. As a result, the application of various provisions under the Labor Standards Act is excluded. If the employer allocates welfare points at a time prescribed by a collective agreement or rules of employment. If the employer allocates the amount of welfare points to the employee as the amount of welfare points used by the employee, the provision on criminal punishment for unpaid wages (Article 109, Article 43 of the Labor Standards Act) is not applicable even if the employee’s ability to pay wages is lost due to the employer’s bankruptcy, etc., the provision on preferential payment of wage claims (Article 38(2) of the Labor Standards Act) is not applicable to the employee’s right to pay wages. For example, for example, the employee’s right to use welfare points after purchasing goods at a welfare card affiliated company and applied for the employer’s ability to pay wages without justifiable reasons.

It is very unreasonable that the employer’s allocation of welfare points as an act of fact recognizing a certain obligation may result in the full exclusion of the application of the provision on wages under the Labor Standards Act that ought to be naturally applied between the employer and the employee. According to the view that the allocation of welfare points is evaluated as the payment of wages, the legal relationship between the parties in the labor relationship takes place at the time of the allocation of welfare points to stop the operation of the Labor Standards Act on the protection of wage claims and to take the general civil law regulations. This view is buried in the goal that welfare points should be included in wages and ordinary wages, and ultimately, in a large frame, it would result in opening the way to avoid the mandatory nature of the Labor Standards Act on the protection of wage claims, and going to the employer’s smooth legal order.

3) The view that recognizes the nature of welfare points as wages and considers the allocation of welfare points as wages as wages does not comply with the purport of the Labor Standards Act that sets the principle of wage payment, and also results in unreasonable consequences in relation to the criminal punishment of the employer.

A) Article 43 of the Labor Standards Act provides for the principle of fixed-term payment of wages at least once a month. This is to establish a basic principle for the payment of wages in order to ensure that wages, which are workers’ means of living, are verified, prompt, and possible payment of wages.

However, the assessment of welfare points as wages is not correct in that it is likely that the employer would allow the employer to pay wages in a way other than in the currency, in light of the foundation of the principle of monetary payment, and as a result, it would impair the intent of the Labor Standards Act to ensure the substantial wages of workers.

B) The Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall be punished when violating the principle on the payment of wages (Article 109(1)), and the principle on the payment of currency may be excluded in cases where there are special provisions in statutes or collective agreements regarding the principle on the payment of wages (proviso of Article 43(1)). Ultimately, when considering the opinion that welfare points constitute wages, an employer who allocates welfare points, other than currency, may be subject to criminal punishment unless there are grounds under statutes or collective agreements.

However, as in the instant case, there are many places of business that do not have any basis under the collective agreement with regard to the allocation of welfare points. The Framework Act on Labor Welfare has provisions regarding the selective welfare program, but it is not adequate to view the provisions under the Framework Act on Labor Welfare as the law that affirms the exception to the principle of monetary payment, unless there is clear

In the process of allocating welfare points, any employer seems to have not operated a selective welfare program with the awareness that it violates the principle of wage payment under the Labor Standards Act, and the perception of workers using welfare points seems to also be the same as the perception of workers using welfare points. Ultimately, an employer is placed at risk of criminal punishment against an employer, contrary to the perception of the parties who grant or use welfare points based on the selective welfare program.

4) In addition, in a case where welfare points are deemed as wages, the issues that may substantially obstruct the activation of the selective welfare program as a new corporate welfare system need not be considered. The employees are bound to use the amount of welfare points directly in currency, rather than the payment of welfare points, as it is more favorable than the payment of welfare points, such as procedurally simple, and no limit on the use of welfare points, and thus, more favorable to the latter. In order for the employer to pay the same amount of wages, it is difficult to find it difficult to find the need for the employer to operate the labor welfare system that is complicated, complicated, cost, and not preferred. The view that welfare points constitute wages is likely to lead to the substantial abolition of the system by denying the intent of the selective welfare program and the significance of its existence.

D. Examining the facts acknowledged earlier in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the instant welfare points based on the selective welfare program of the instant case cannot be deemed as wages under the Labor Standards Act, and as a result, cannot be included in ordinary wages.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the nature of welfare points’ wages, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, except for a separate opinion by Justice Kim Jae-hyung and a dissenting opinion by Justice Park Sang-ok, Justice Park Jung-hwa, Justice Kim Ri-soo, and Justice Kim Jong-hwan, and a concurrence with the Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kim

5. Concurrence by Justice Kim Jae-hyung

A. The key issue to be determined in the instant case is whether welfare points in the instant case are money and valuables paid as remuneration for work, and whether it constitutes ordinary wages if acknowledged.

The first issue is whether the allocation of welfare points by an employer (the original instance is the allocation of welfare points, but it does not include the employee’s use) and the employee’s use of welfare points can be seen as the payment of wages. Whether the allocation of welfare points itself can be evaluated as the “payment of money and valuables” or whether the allocation of welfare points can be seen as the “payment of money and valuables” is a matter of determination at the stage of payment and amount of money and valuables after affirming the nature of wages in welfare points. In determining the legal relationship between an employer and an employee surrounding welfare points, interpretation of welfare points should not be developed in consideration of the principle of monetary payment or the standard of determination of ordinary wages such as the fixedness. The principle of monetary payment is not whether wages are wages (Article 2(1)5 of the Labor Standards Act), but rather, the method of paying wages (the main sentence of Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act), and whether welfare points constitute ordinary wages is a matter to be dealt with only after determining whether welfare points constitute wages.

B. Whether money and valuables paid to an employer constitutes wages is determined depending on whether such money and valuables were paid to an employee as remuneration for work, and this does not uniformly exclude the characteristic of wages, on the grounds that this is well-being. The Labor Standards Act comprehensively defines wages as “all money and valuables paid to an employee by an employer,” and states that the name does not affect the determination of whether such money and valuables are wages. Therefore, the name of “welfare” does not interfere with the determination of whether such money and valuables are wages. The instant welfare points do not have any reason to regard

Considering the nature of the instant welfare points, the method of use, and the relationship between the settlement of accounts, etc., which have the nature of an online electronic settlement means, the employer may evaluate the process of allocating the instant welfare points to the employee and using them by the employee as wages. The legal relationship between the employer and the employee regarding the instant welfare points is reasonable to deem that the relationship between the employer and the employee is the relationship between the employer and the employee to pay the employee

1) Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides for the principle of monetary payment. Except as otherwise provided in statutes or collective agreements, it is intended to ensure the substantial securing of workers’ wages by allowing them to pay wages in currency with the capacity of compulsory subscription.

In the reality of labor relations, there are cases where wages are paid in cash or cashier's checks in a monthly wage bag, but most of them are cases where the monthly salary is remitted to the bank account owned by workers. When determining whether the payment method is in compliance with the principle of monetary payment as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act as a result of various changes, it is necessary to consider economic reality, the method of transaction, and the change of the general public's perception on the concept of currency. The monetary payment principle should not be excessively strict interpretation and operation without considering the different transaction reality and norms that are different from the time of

2) It is also necessary to approach welfare points and legal relations surrounding welfare points from this perspective.

In the virtual space of the Internet, the purchase of various goods and services is generalized and various online electronic settlement means are diversified. The employee’s livelihood support activities consisting of wages are considerably limited to the consumption through the virtual space of the Internet. Under the premise of the changed transaction reality and normative status, where the employer pays online electronic settlement means that can be used in daily life as wages, a flexible interpretation is requested to the extent that does not undermine the principle of monetary payment. In other words, it cannot be readily concluded that the payment of various online electronic settlement means as remuneration for work goes against the principle of monetary payment, and it is necessary to examine the substance of the electronic settlement means such as the method of use, scope, and settlement of accounts. The instant case, where the nature of legal relations surrounding the allocation of welfare points is at issue, is also in this context.

3) Examining the legal relationship between the employer and the employee surrounding the instant welfare points in detail, the following conclusion can be reached.

In this case, an employer has regularly and continuously allocated a certain amount of welfare points to an employee each year based on the collective agreement or rules of employment, etc., and an employee may use welfare points by purchasing goods at an online shopping site exclusive for employees. In such cases, an employer is obligated to pay wages equivalent to the amount of money converted into money through collective agreement or rules of employment to the maximum extent of the amount equivalent to the value converted into money.

An employee who receives welfare points from an employer may purchase goods, etc. as welfare points or purchase goods, etc. using welfare cards at an employee-only online shopping site or at other off-line stores, and use welfare points in the manner of deducting welfare points. In the case of the former, the relationship between the employer and the employee on the settlement of accounts with the employer and the online shopping site operating company, etc., rather than the relationship between the employer and the employee on the settlement of accounts with the employer. In the latter case, the employee who used welfare points is entitled to receive the money equivalent to

As can be seen through the process of using welfare points and settling accounts, welfare points allocated each year by the employer are the means of online electronic settlement. It is not reasonable to evaluate that welfare points are merely virtual figures, or to evaluate that welfare points are given to the employees as an act of verifying the employer’s obligation to pay obligations. An employer has allocated welfare points to the employees upon the fulfillment of the obligation to pay wages.

However, in the event of using welfare points as an online electronic settlement means, the place of use may be limited or the items of use may be limited by the employee-only online shopping site prepared by the employer. In a case where an employee uses welfare points through a welfare card, the actual benefit would accrue to the employee only when he/she receives the settlement from the employer. The employer is also in the relationship where the employee uses welfare points in the process of settling accounts with the employee according to the employee’s use,

Examining the substance of welfare points in light of the nature, method of use, scope, and settlement relation of welfare points, it is reasonable to view that the performance of the duty to pay wages to workers in relation to welfare points ought to be completed only through a series of processes, including the acquisition of profits from the use of welfare points by the employee, starting from the allocation of welfare points to the employee. As a result, it is not deemed that the employer allocated welfare points to the employee, but the payment of wages by the employee is ultimately made in proportion to the amount of welfare points actually used by the employee.

C. In short, it is reasonable to view that wages are paid as remuneration for work through a series of processes of the allocation of welfare points in the instant case and the use of welfare points by workers, in line with the changing norm of law. The Majority Opinion is unreasonable that the legal relationship surrounding welfare points in the instant case is irrelevant to the payment of wages or the allocation of welfare points cannot be evaluated as the process of paying wages.

D. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant paid the Plaintiffs remuneration for work as the instant welfare points is reasonable. However, on the premise that the allocation of welfare points itself was completed by deeming the payment of wages, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the wages of welfare points and the ordinary wages, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

As above, the majority opinion and the decision of the court below are reversed for the same reasons, but the reasons are different, and the separate opinion is presented.

6. Dissenting Opinion by Justice Park Sang-ok, Justice Park Jung-hwa, Justice Kim Ri-soo, and Justice Kim Jong-hwan

A. The Majority Opinion, while implementing the selective welfare program, determined that welfare points allocated continuously and regularly to employees according to the collective agreement or rules of employment do not constitute wages under the Labor Standards Act, and that the result does not constitute ordinary wages. However, we cannot agree with the Majority Opinion for the following reasons.

1) Welfare points that are continuously and regularly allocated and are crossed out to an employer based on collective agreements, rules of employment, etc. should be deemed as money and valuables paid in compensation for work.

A) (1) Article 2(1) of the Labor Standards Act defines “wages” as “wages, salary and any other name, and all other money and valuables paid by an employer as remuneration for work (Article 5)” and defines “labor contracts” as “contract entered into for the purpose of providing labor to an employer and paying wages to an employer.” Considering the content of the aforementioned provision and the legislative purport of protecting an employee, it is reasonable to understand that money and valuables provided and received from an employer under a labor contract entered into with an employer are directly related to, or closely related to, the provision of labor, unless there are other special circumstances, barring special circumstances. Here, the term “where any other special circumstance exists” in this context refers to cases where the pertinent money and valuables are paid for compensation for actual expenses or benefits, or are paid for special and incidental circumstances unrelated to the provision of labor to an individual employee.”

(2) It is reasonable to view that welfare points are directly or closely related to the provision of labor, except in extenuating circumstances. From this perspective, welfare points allocated each year in accordance with the collective agreement or the rules of employment may not be evaluated as being given by the special and incidental circumstances of an individual employee, irrespective of the provision of labor. As such, given that welfare points are allocated equally to all employees every year, they cannot be deemed as compensation for actual expenses. Inasmuch as welfare points are allocated continuously and regularly on a yearly basis, and are given the employer the obligation to allocate through the rules of employment or collective agreement of the workplace, insofar as they are given the employer a mutually advantageous payment.

Furthermore, considering the ordinary method and criteria for the allocation of welfare points, welfare points may be sufficiently recognized as money and valuables directly related to, or closely related to, the provision of labor by workers. In the workplace where the selective welfare program is being implemented, the provisions governing the settlement of accounts to work on the basis of the working period of the pertinent year or on a monthly basis in relation to the allocation of welfare points. Furthermore, the detailed criteria for the allocation of welfare points are generally established, such as continuous service points granted differentiated according to the number of years of service, other than common points or basic points that are equally granted to all workers, and family points that are additionally granted according to the number of years of service. Each of these circumstances is practically responding to the basic pay, continuous service allowances, and family allowances recognized as wage. These circumstances support the fact that welfare points are directly related to, or closely related to, the provision of labor.

(3) Ultimately, welfare points allocated continuously and regularly by an employer based on collective agreements or rules of employment are clearly deemed wages as remuneration for work.

B) The nature of welfare points is not denied on the ground that welfare points are paid as welfare benefits. Family allowances, housing allowances, etc., which can be considered as a representative allowance paid as welfare benefits, are also paid as compensation for providing labor in the sense that the employer does not directly or pro rataly respond to working hours. Considering that such allowances, etc. are not actual remuneration for providing labor is merely a simple legal fiction (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da26721, Dec. 21, 1995). Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that where a certain amount is additionally paid to an employee who has actual dependents while paying a basic amount as a family allowance and paying a certain amount additionally to an employee who has actual dependents, such basic amount falls under ordinary wages (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399, Dec. 18, 2013, etc.). The employer continuously grants the employee’s obligation to pay wages under a collective agreement or the rules of employment, etc., and there is no reason to deem it as compensation for actual or ordinary expenses.

C) Among various allowances corresponding to wages under the Labor Standards Act, there are allowances that are not directly or pro rata to the number of working days or working hours, and allowances that are not paid regardless of the provision of labor is attached to certain payment conditions, and there are allowances that are paid in advance on the premise of future work. It cannot be said that welfare points are not paid in advance on the beginning of the year before the allocation of welfare points or the provision of labor is made.

D) Even in cases of welfare wages that an employer pays regularly and continuously to an employee based on a collective agreement or rules of employment, there are often cases where it is not classified as “compensation” or “wages” under the collective agreement or rules of employment, but this is nothing more than a result of the occurrence of welfare points under the pretext of convenience. The same applies to welfare points based on the selective welfare program. It is reasonable that such formal classification may not be an important and substantive standard when determining whether welfare points are remuneration for labor, and that it is not reasonable to deem that the parties in a labor relationship recognize that welfare points are not remuneration for labor.

Unlike the pointed out in the Majority Opinion, deeming that the perception of an individual employee who is allocated welfare points does not receive welfare points in cash, and it is reasonable to regard that welfare points are used as “a separate wage”. For example, in the workplace where welfare points 1,000 points per year are allocated at the beginning of the year, and employees are recognized to additionally include one million won per year in the amount of wages used as a source for the formation and maintenance of livelihood, and that the amount of welfare points converted into welfare points is used as cash. In addition, it is supported by the fact that almost all employees use the total amount of welfare points as cash, and that welfare points in a certain amount per year are used as a means for the purchase of various goods, services, and use of facilities, although the size of welfare points vary by workplace. In the context of a normative judgment in the labor law, sufficient consideration is required for this reality.

E) Although there are many places of business where part of welfare points allocated are required to be used as insurance premiums, etc. for life and injury coverage insurance, such circumstance cannot be the basis for denying the working price of welfare points. The Supreme Court affirmed the wage of individual pension premiums, individual pension subsidies, and guaranteed insurance premiums (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da13762, Oct. 13, 2005; 2012Da90764, Dec. 11, 2014; 2014Da45720, Mar. 10, 2016). Considering the attitude of such precedents, the Supreme Court does not deny the working price on the welfare points allocated by the employer as mentioned above.

2) The allocation of welfare points may be assessed as the payment of money and valuables to workers by the employer.

A) Although welfare points allocated to an employee based on the selective welfare program by the employer are somewhat limited to the employee’s use of welfare points, an employee may freely use welfare points within the employee’s intended use, and an employer may not interfere with or refuse the settlement of accounts with respect to the use of welfare points within the employee’s intended use. In that context, welfare points are not substantially paid in currency in terms of the employee’s formation and maintenance of livelihood through that welfare points. Therefore, welfare points are limited to the possibility of use of welfare points, or are not money and valuables.

Furthermore, as in the instant case, insofar as the employee can purchase goods, etc. directly using welfare points at the employee-only online shopping site, the employer’s allocation of welfare points ought to be deemed as the payment of money and valuables practically to the employee. In other words, given that the employee’s allocation of welfare points is the same as the employee’s receipt of electronic settlement means by which goods, etc. can be purchased from the employee-only online shopping site, it may be evaluated that money and valuables have been paid at the time of allocation to the employee. In addition, insofar as welfare points having the nature as electronic settlement means are given to the employee, it does not mean that the employer is not free to pay money and valuables as stated in the Majority Opinion. In this regard, the Majority Opinion assumes that the allocation of welfare points can not be paid in kind, rather than in cash, (i) the Labor Standards Act is premised on the fact that welfare points may not be paid in kind, and (ii) the employee may not use money and valuables or other similar means to use welfare points in the employee-only online shopping site, as long as it does not have any reason to use them in kind or in kind.

The employer’s allocation of welfare points may be deemed as an act of a conclusive attribution of the employee by granting the employee the right to dispose of property profits corresponding thereto to the allocation of welfare points. As such, it is not reasonable to reduce the meaning of welfare points as it is merely a simple factual act that confirms that the employee is obligated to make a final payment when the employee purchases goods, etc. using welfare points or welfare cards, or because of the virtual numerical value introduced by the employee to facilitate verbal expressions. Ultimately, the allocation of welfare points is completed by the employee’s allocation of welfare points, and the allocation of welfare points is not only part of the process of performing the employee’s payment to the employee. The deduction and refund of welfare points after the employee’s purchase of goods, etc. are merely a determination of the specific procedures for using welfare points on the premise that the employee’s right

B) The “wages points” cited by the Majority Opinion as examples are different from those of the instant case, and it is inappropriate to compare them with each other. As noted earlier, welfare points may be used for purchasing goods, etc. on online shopping sites, which are similar to electronic settlement means. On the other hand, wage points cited by the Majority Opinion are merely an intermediate stage for the payment of wages, but are merely an object of virtual payment. In other words, it is difficult to say that they have a legally significant substance. Moreover, as it is difficult to find any basis under statutes or collective agreements, it does not simply compare virtual wage points that are contrary to the principle of monetary payment with welfare points.

C) The Majority Opinion argues that the use of welfare points is limited, the extinguishment of welfare points in the event of failure to use welfare points in one year, and the impossibility of transfer are also important grounds for denying the nature of wages. However, it is not reasonable for

(1) First of all, through Supreme Court Decisions 94Da55934 Decided May 12, 1995 cited by the Majority Opinion, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da23149 Decided July 14, 201, etc., the standard of determination consistently presented by the Supreme Court when determining whether a person falls under the wage under the Labor Standards Act is related to the provision of labor, the continuity and continuity of payment, the employer’s obligation to pay, etc., and the unlimitedness and possibility of transfer of the purpose of use, etc. do not fall under this. Furthermore, wages may be paid in kind, not in currency. In addition, in the case of the payment in kind, the use is restricted in nature, and the possibility of transfer is also restricted, and the utility value at the time of the payment in kind may be lost. Ultimately, denying wage by the Majority Opinion based on the above circumstances does not comply with the previous legal principles, but also accords with the provisions that affirm the payment in kind, other than in currency, and the Labor Standards Act.

(2) Even if welfare points that have not been used are extinguished without carrying over, they are already allocated welfare points and disposed of by an employee who has been granted the right to dispose of property profits therefrom according to his/her own intent, and thus, the nature of wages cannot be denied on this ground. The nature of welfare points as wages cannot be denied on the ground that they are means of electronic settlement, other than cash, whose period of use is set.

In addition, considering that it is the reality that almost all workers use the full amount of welfare points allocated by the employer, it is difficult to deny the nature of wages by emphasizing the extinction of the unused.

D) Ultimately, deeming that the right to dispose of property profits equivalent thereto according to the employer’s allocation of welfare points has been transferred to an employee and finally reverted to the employee is in accord with the substance.

3) The nature of wages in welfare points cannot be denied solely based on the statutes based on the selective welfare program.

A) The Majority Opinion, which states that welfare points are not wages, states that Article 3 of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare, which regulates the selective welfare program, excludes wages from the concept of workers’ welfare.

However, the determination of whether welfare points constitute wages ought to be made in consideration of the need to protect wages in light of the substance of the Labor Standards Act from the perspective of the Labor Standards Act. The Labor Act’s regulation ought to be interpreted and applied in accordance with the substance thereof. In particular, in the case of wage items on the Han Limit Line, it is important to determine the substance thereof and make legal decisions by examining the substance thereof. The provisions of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare stated in the Majority Opinion merely provide that the Framework Act on Labor Welfare intends to regulate as a policy, but do not have the legislative intent or purpose to regulate whether welfare points, which form the content of the selective welfare program, implemented by individual companies, can be evaluated as wages. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that the provisions of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare, have the legislative intent to deny the application of the interpretation standard of the Labor Standards Act as to whether welfare points fall under wages under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, it is unreasonable to interpret that the provisions of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare are not wages under the Labor Standards Act, or to derive the conclusion that it is difficult to affirm the nature of wages.

Meanwhile, as stated in the Dissenting Opinion, recognizing the nature of welfare points as wages, the selective welfare program is irrelevant to workers’ welfare or its welfare nature is not denied.

B) In addition, prior to regulating the Framework Act on Labor Welfare for the first time in 2010, welfare points have already been paid by implementing the selective welfare program in various public institutions or private enterprises. The Defendant has also been paid welfare points based on the “Guidelines for Operating the Selective Welfare Program”, which is an internal provision from around 2008. The Majority Opinion denying the nature of welfare points in light of the provisions of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare, which denies the nature of wages, is unreasonable as it evaluates the substance of the practical legal relationship that existed in the past, with the form and content of the law established ex post facto.

4) In light of the progress of the selective welfare program and the current status of its operation, the wage nature of welfare points cannot be denied.

A) As pointed out in the Majority Opinion, even if the selective welfare program was designed from the perspective of a new corporate welfare program or corporate welfare program, it is necessary to understand the substance of the selective welfare program and welfare points actually implemented in our reality and review the characteristic of wages on the premise of understanding the substance of the selective welfare program and welfare points.

In Korea, there have been many cases of integrating group insurance premiums, various commemorative money and valuables, congratulatory expenses, food expenses, and health examination expenses that were paid in cash or borne by the employer as a selective welfare program with multiple wage items. In other words, despite the original intent of the selective welfare program to change the content or the level of benefits for corporate welfare based on the employee’s individual choice, its substance is nothing more than converting the original welfare wage items into the selective welfare program. Although the form of welfare benefits was changed from the selective welfare program to the enterprise welfare system, the substance of the wages that were paid in return for work is still maintained without changing the form of the selective welfare program. Considering these circumstances, even if recognizing the wage nature of welfare points, the need to protect them by deeming the wage as wages is sufficient, and the majority opinion denying the wage nature as the majority opinion did not reflect the remaining substance excessively emphasizing only the external change.

B) Determination of the wage nature of welfare points ought to also take into account the realistic aspects of welfare points that are designed and operated by the selective welfare system. The items used in welfare points in the instant case consist of travel (e.g., lodging, express buses, taxies, etc.), health care (sports, leisure goods, medical supplies, health clubs, health clubs, hospital care, etc.), cultural life (motion pictures, sound records, books, phrases, automobile maintenance, cosmetic, etc.), family life (child kindergartens, universal practice institutes, reading rooms, reading rooms, children’s houses, perfects, learning places, and general department stores, etc.). As such, the items used in welfare points are mostly different from the payment of wages by employers. Ultimately, our general selective welfare system emphasizes only the history of a new corporate welfare system in order to deny wage nature by disregarding these circumstances.

C) The acknowledgement of the nature of wages in welfare points cannot be deemed as an obstacle to the activation of the selective welfare program.

In the instant case, the Defendant introduced the selective welfare program in 2008. Examining the annual amount of welfare points allocated from that time to that time the instant lawsuit was brought, the use or dissemination of the selective welfare program directly related to whether welfare points are recognized as wages or not is difficult. Workers recognize welfare points as wages in the form of wages. If welfare points are recognized as wages, the fact that the employer would abolish or reduce the selective welfare program is merely an unverification of the fact that the employer would discontinue or reduce the selective welfare program, and does not constitute an element to consider the determination of the wage nature of welfare points. If welfare points are recognized as wages, the abolishment or reduction of welfare points falls under the unfavorable change of working conditions, and the employer would not unilaterally take such measures. The recognition of the wage nature of welfare points would help prevent the unilateral abolition or reduction of the selective welfare program.

Meanwhile, the face of the issue of the wage nature of welfare points is limited to the case where the employer directly operates the selective welfare program. The selective welfare program may be operated as the business of an intra-company labor welfare company, which has a legal personality separate from the employer in accordance with the Framework Act on Labor Welfare. In a case where an intra-company labor welfare company operates the selective welfare program, there is no room for the issue of the wage nature of welfare points, and thus, in this case, there is no influence on the selective welfare program operated by the intra-company labor welfare company, just by recognizing the wage nature of welfare points in this case. Furthermore, the company’s welfare can be realized not only by the selective welfare program but also by various methods, such as the employee support program, the employee support program, the distribution of performance, and the employee stock ownership program.

Rather, in cases where welfare points are not considered as wages, the employer’s choice of the method of additionally allocating welfare points of the same value instead of raising wages may not lead to concerns over avoiding the regulations under the Labor Standards Act on wages and ordinary wages.

5) Unlike the concerns of the Majority Opinion, even if welfare points are recognized as wages, it does not go against the wage-related system or the principle of wage payment under the Labor Standards Act, and the employer’s criminal punishment arises, or it cannot be readily concluded that serious defects occur in the application of the Labor Standards Act.

A) The main text of Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides for the principle of monetary payment, etc., and Article 43(2) of the same Act provides for the principle of regular payment at least once a month. The purpose of monetary payment is to ensure the economic freedom of workers and the actual payment of wages by prohibiting spot payment in kind. At least once a month, the purpose of this principle is to ensure the stability of workers’ livelihood by compelling the payment of wages on a fixed date. However, this principle is only about the method of payment of wages, not what is the standard for determining whether wages are wages. The conclusion that the payment of wages is not made in currency or that the payment of wages was not made at least once a month does not constitute wages on the ground that it did not constitute wages.

B) The proviso of Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act recognizes an exception to the principle of monetary payment by providing that “Provided, That where there are special provisions in statutes or collective agreements, part of wages may be deducted or paid in any manner other than currency,” thereby recognizing the exception to the principle of monetary payment. In relation to welfare points, there are grounds for collective agreements in several places of business regarding welfare points, and even if not, considering the fact that Articles 81 and 82 of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare can be the basis for the allocation of welfare points, the wage nature cannot be readily denied solely on the ground that the amount equivalent to welfare points has not been paid in currency. In relation to the employer’s criminal punishment issues, the employer is not subject to criminal punishment by having allocated welfare points.

In relation to the principle of regular payment at least once a month, Article 23 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act provides that the same shall not apply to incentives, bonuses, etc. calculated on the ground that the period exceeds one month. Since welfare points calculated on an ordinary one-year basis can be included in this, it does not interfere with the recognition of wage nature, and the employer's criminal punishment is not an issue.

C) Meanwhile, even if welfare points constitute wages, as long as the Labor Standards Act clearly stipulates the grounds for exception to the principle of monetary payment, the employer may not convert the wages into money or goods, not in currency, so it cannot be said that the principle of monetary payment may be fundamentally damaged.

D) The Majority Opinion points out that, when the employee’s allocation of welfare points is evaluated as the payment of wages, even if the employee did not use welfare points or refuses to settle the amount equivalent to welfare points used, the employee’s monetary claims against the employer may not be deemed as wage claims, and the application of the Labor Standards Act is excluded, and that only civil legal regulations are made and unfair. However, this problem is one of the several limitations frequently related to the application of the Labor Standards Act, and the court’s decision should be made by comprehensively taking into account the intent of the Labor Standards Act and the specific feasibility of the case into account. For example, in a case where the employment relationship is terminated due to bankruptcy in the middle of the pertinent year, it is reasonable to recognize the right of preferential payment as to the amount equivalent to welfare points not used by the employee until the time when the employment relationship is terminated. Considering the nature of welfare points as wages and the special nature of the use and settlement of welfare points, it accords with the purport of

Furthermore, the Majority Opinion, on the premise that the legal relationship between the employer and the employee surrounding welfare points is entirely irrelevant to wages and the application of the Labor Standards Act is excluded as a matter of course, and on the other hand, it is unreasonable to view that the protection of the Labor Standards Act on wage claims is lacking in assessing the allocation of welfare points as wages. Such pointed out by the Majority Opinion is difficult to clearly understand the purport of the allocation of welfare points as it is based on the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, i.e., electronic settlement means in which welfare

6) Recognition of the wage nature and ordinary wage nature of welfare points is desirable from a macrosive and future-oriented perspective, namely, improvement of the wage system and legal stability of the labor site.

A) Although wages are the most important working condition to be secured for guaranteeing and improving the basic livelihood of workers, the complicated wage system, such as name, requirements for payment, and timing of payment of allowances, etc., is widely spread in the labor site, and among money and valuables paid by an employer, the substance of the consideration for labor is not reflected at all. As such, there are many cases where it is difficult to determine whether the employer and the employee fully paid and received the consideration for labor agreed. The complicatedly divided wage system causes confusion and trouble in determining whether various allowances constitute ordinary wages, and furthermore, it is not easy to determine the scope of ordinary wages, which serve as the basis for calculating statutory allowances, such as extended, night, and holiday allowances.

B) Such complicated and somewhat complicated wage systems are placed in unstable legal relations between both an employer and an employee, thereby seriously impairing legal stability. Even if an employee files a lawsuit claiming the difference of accrued wages due to property appraisal of ordinary wages, the determination of acceptance depends on the final judgment of the Supreme Court. Many workers have not filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of statutory allowances based on the ordinary wages reasonably calculated due to various restrictions. The same applies to the employer in an unstable legal state in that the employer may additionally pay labor costs of a significant amount that is not initially anticipated depending on the outcome of the lawsuit. All such instability remains until the Supreme Court’s determination of the wage or ordinary wage of a certain wage item is made.

C) Interpretation of welfare points that are paid continuously and regularly and are liable to pay to an employer pursuant to collective agreements or rules of employment constitutes wages and ordinary wages has a positive effect to improve the wage system and promote the legal stability of the labor site. Ultimately, it cannot be emphasized once again that the purpose of the Labor Standards Act is to ensure the balanced development of the national economy through the improvement of working conditions, such as wages, accords with the purpose of the Labor Standards Act.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant welfare points can be deemed as wages under the Labor Standards Act.

Furthermore, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, welfare points in the instant case constitute ordinary wages as consideration for contractual work regularly, uniformly, and regularly paid to workers.

Ultimately, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on wages and ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act.

For the foregoing reasons, we cannot agree with the Majority Opinion.

7. Opinion concurring with the Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kim Seon-soo and Justice Kim Jong-hwan

The Dissenting Opinion affirming the wage nature and ordinary wage nature of the instant welfare points is desirable even from the perspective of the labor policy that reduces working hours.

A. It is a well-known fact that Korean workers are working for an excessive time compared to developed countries. An employer is obliged to pay overtime wages at least on the basis of the ordinary wage recognized even if the previous workers have worked in excess of ordinary wages by converting money and valuables paid to workers or excluding ordinary wages. As a result, the labor cost is much saved by allowing the previous workers to work in excess of the ordinary wage. As a result, the purpose of the additional wage system under the Labor Standards Act, which seeks to restrain overtime work, is not to properly function by preventing additional monetary burden on the basis of the ordinary wage, which is the remuneration for contractual work, based on the ordinary wage, which is the remuneration for the fixed work. For this reason, it cannot be denied that the Supreme Court recognizes a majority of the wage items excluded from wages or ordinary wages. As such, since the Supreme Court recognizes wage items that are not the wage or ordinary wage, an employer is trying to avoid the application of the Labor Standards Act.

B. In order to improve this problem, it is necessary to simplify the wage system as a job grade system to clarify the scope of wage and ordinary wage, and to have the parties in labor relations induce them to voluntarily restrain overtime work. To overcome and improve the complicated and advanced wage system such as the present, and to reduce working hours, it is a trend that our society is a task and cannot be satisfy. However, the Supreme Court has further recognized the wage items that do not fall under the wage and ordinary wage, thereby failing to comply with the demands of the times.

As above, I express my concurrence with the Dissenting Opinion.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)