2016Da26099 Wages

It is as shown in the attached list of plaintiffs.

Korea hydroelectric Power Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na26179 Decided April 15, 2016

December 29, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

A. Article 22(2) of the former Remuneration Regulations of the Defendant (amended by Act No. 13, Jan. 13, 2012; hereinafter “former Remuneration Regulations”) provides that “The annual payment rate of the basic bonus shall be 300% and 150% shall be paid in principle on a half-yearly basis,” but Article 22(2) of the amended Remuneration Regulations of January 13, 2012 (hereinafter “Revised Remuneration Regulations”) amended that “The annual payment rate of the basic bonus shall be 300% and 75% shall be paid in principle on a quarterly basis.”

B. Accordingly, Article 19(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Remuneration Regulations of the defendant (amended by Act No. 2012, Jan. 13, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule prior to the amendment") provides that the base date for the payment of basic bonus and the period of probation shall be 3.15, the base date for the payment from September 16 of the preceding year to March 15, the base date for the calculation of probation shall be 9.15, the base date for the calculation of probation shall be 9.16, the base date for the calculation of probation from January 13, 2012 to 15.6, the base date for the calculation of probation shall not be 1.5, the base date for the calculation of probation from January 15, 2015 to 16.6, the base date for the calculation of probation from January 16, 2015 to 19.6, the base date for the payment of probation from March 15, 2016.6.6.

D. Meanwhile, Article 1 of the Addenda to the amended Remuneration Regulations provides that "this provision shall enter into force on December 16, 2010," and Article 2 provides that "The employees subject to the application of attached Table 1-1 of Article 11 of the previous Regulations (referring to those employed after June 1, 2009 pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the amended Act, June 1, 2009) shall be subject to the following basic pay table of A employees and B's job performance rating during the period of service from December 16, 201 to June 30, 201, from July 1, 201 to July 201, and from July 1, 2011 to December 15, 2012:

E. In addition, Article 1 of the Addenda to the amended Enforcement Rule provides that "this Rule shall enter into force on December 16, 2010," Article 2 (2) provides that "from March 15, 2012 to June 14, 2012, and from September 15, 2012 to December 14, 2012, employees below class 4 shall be paid 75 percent of basic bonuses," and Article 2 (3) provides that "the basic bonus of a person who is suspended from office or on leave for the period from September 16, 201 to December 15, 201 shall be reduced at the time of payment of the basic bonus in March pursuant to Article 23 (Treatment of Absence)."

2. The lower court determined that the part concerning the change in the payment method of basic bonus among the amended remuneration regulations and its detailed implementation regulations was not applied retroactively on December 16, 2010.

① The amended remuneration regulations and Article 1 of the Addenda of the enforcement rules are only provisions for the payment of basic wages and occupational wages retroactively from December 16, 2010.

(2) Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the amended Remuneration Regulations provides that the wage increase portion shall be applied retroactively by year.

③ According to Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the amended Enforcement Rule, the provisions on pre-amended remuneration regulations and the enforcement rules thereof provide that the retirement from March 15, 2012 to June 14 of the same year shall be 150% in the case of the retirement from March 15, 2012, and 300% in the case of the retirement from September 15 to December 14 of the same year, 30% in the case of the retirement from September 15 of the same year, but the retirement from September 14 of the same year shall be paid 75% in each case, and 225% in the case of the amended Enforcement Rule.

④ Article 2(3) of the Addenda to the amended Enforcement Rule provides that the Defendant would not adopt the method of paying the basic bonus for the period from September 16, 2011 to December 15, 201, without adopting the method of paying the basic bonus for the period from September 16, 2011, and reflect it in the calculation of the basic bonus for March 2012, on the premise that the change in the method of paying the amended basic bonus is not retroactive application.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the decision of the court below as it is for the following reasons.

A. Since the rules of employment have the nature of a legal norm that prescribes collective legal relations between labor and management, the fact-finding or interpretation that disregards the objective meaning of the language and text ought to be prudent and strict, barring any clear evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da78536, Jun. 9, 2016). Therefore, if a business operator had retroactively determined the date of enforcement while formulating and amending the rules of employment, such rules of employment should be deemed retroactively applied to “the date of enforcement stipulated”, barring special circumstances.

In particular, since workers’ wage claims are protected under the Labor Standards Act, an expression of intent unfavorable to workers regarding wage claims ought to be strictly interpreted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10505, Apr. 11, 2013);

B. Examining the above relevant legal principles and the contents of the above provision and the above provision before and after the amendment of the enforcement rule in light of the following circumstances, the amended remuneration regulations and the basic bonus part of the enforcement rule ought to be retroactively applied from December 16, 2010.

(1) Article 1 of the Addenda to the amended Remuneration Regulations and its enforcement regulations stipulate the enforcement date as of December 16, 2010, respectively. In addition, the defendant separately provided for the provision that the retroactive application should be different in cases where the enforcement date is retroactively stipulated in the previous Remuneration Regulations and its enforcement regulations. However, in the amended Remuneration Regulations and its enforcement regulations, there is no separate provision that the retroactive application of the basic bonus for December 201 or the method of calculating it is different.

② Although there was a primary purpose of the amendment of the remuneration regulations and its detailed enforcement regulations in order to meet the international accounting standards in accordance with the government’s guidelines, there was also a purpose to reduce disadvantages of workers retired during the middle of the period of calculation of the period of calculation of the period of payment of the basic bonus by shortening the period of payment of the remuneration. Moreover, there was no specific discussion as to whether a labor-management would pay a basic bonus that reflects the root from September 16, 201 to December 15, 201 in the process of amending the remuneration regulations and its enforcement regulations.

③ According to the transitional measures under Articles 11(1) and 17(1) of the former Remuneration Regulations amended on June 1, 2009, and paragraph (2) of the Addenda of the former Act on June 1, 2009, the defendant newly established the attached Table 1-1 (Basic Wage Table II) and attached Table 3-1 (Rules II) with respect to employees since 2009, and paid an amount lower than the previous employees. By eliminating the attached Table 1-1 and attached Table 3-1 under Article 11(1) of the amended Remuneration Regulations and Article 17(1) of the Addenda, the defendant has to pay an amount lower than the previous employees by applying the previous 20-1 and attached Table 3-1 to the new 10-1 of the former 10-year 20-year 20-year 20-year 10 of the former 20-year 10-year 20-year 20-year 201 of the Addenda.

(4) Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the amended Enforcement Rule provides that a person shall pay 75% of the basic bonus specially to the subordinate workers who will receive a lower ratio of the previous bonus when retired at a specified period in 2012 due to a change in the method of payment of the basic bonus, and the result may not change depending on the retroactive application of the amended method of payment of the basic bonus.

(5) Article 2 (3) of the Addenda to the amended Enforcement Rule shall apply to the basic bonus for December 2, 201, which has already arrived at the payment base date pursuant to Article 1 of the Addenda to the amended Enforcement Rule, once the basic bonus for September 16, 201 shall be paid in full, and the amount calculated according to the base wage as at the base date of the payment base date shall be reduced from the basic bonus for March 2012 by reflecting the current status of neglect from September 16, 201 to December 15, 201

may be seen.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for payment of the basic bonus of December 201 based on the premise that the changes in the payment method of the amended remuneration regulations and the scope of application of Article 1 of the Addenda thereto are not retroactively applied. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the amended remuneration regulations and the detailed enforcement regulations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Park Byung-hee

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jong-il