[1] The scope of wages, which serves as the basis for calculating the average wage, and the standard for determining whether certain money and valuables were paid for work

[2] The case holding that the medical reward fee paid by the hospital A to its doctors shall be deemed to be included in the total wage, which is the basis of calculating the average wage under the Labor Standards Act

[1] Article 2(1)5 and 6 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 2(1)5 and 6 of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da55934 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 211), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da18127 delivered on May 31, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1517)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Future, Attorneys Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Corporation, a merged lawsuit taken over by the Korea Medical Center

Busan High Court Decision 2010Na1664 decided August 26, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The total wage, which forms the basis for the calculation of average wage, includes all money and valuables paid by an employer to an employee as an object of work, where the employer has been continuously and regularly paid to an employee as an object of work and the obligation to pay such money and valuables is crossed out to an employer under the collective agreement, employment rules, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da18127, May 31, 2002). Meanwhile, in determining whether certain money and valuables are paid as an object of work, the occurrence of the obligation to pay money and valuables must be deemed directly related to the provision of work or closely related thereto, and in cases where the occurrence of the obligation to pay money and valuables depends on the special and contingency circumstances of an individual employee, such money and valuables cannot be deemed as being paid as an object of work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da5934, May 12, 195).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the adopted evidence, received each other's reward, which was paid by the defendant (the merger of the Korea Industrial Medical Institute at the first instance court, on April 28, 2010), based on the basic salary and bonus, or the standard for payment of medical treatment performance, from its doctors in addition to the basic salary and bonus. The above medical treatment reward included the basic bonus, special bonus, performance bonus proportional to the different amount of medical treatment benefits, cooperation, and criminal record bonus, etc. The above medical treatment reward, including the basic bonus, special bonus, and special bonus, and the amount of performance bonus, which were paid to the defendant as a medical specialist by January 31, 2009. The court below determined that the defendant's comprehensive reward and bonus, which were paid to the defendant, including the above medical treatment bonus, should be deemed to be paid as the average wage of video at the above ○ hospital by the day of May 14, 2009. The court below determined that the defendant's comprehensive reward and bonus should be considered as the difference between the plaintiffs' own reward and bonus.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to average wages under the Labor Standards Act, as alleged in the

Meanwhile, although the defendant submitted a written appeal to the effect that he/she is dissatisfied with the whole part of the judgment below against the defendant, there is no indication in the written appeal and there is no indication in the appellate brief as to the remaining part of the judgment against the defendant.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)