2018Da303417 Wages

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Attorney Kim Young-deok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., manufactures of Korean Astro-ROMs (formerly: Korean Astro-ROM

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Kang Young-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 2015Na23667 Decided November 21, 2018

April 29, 2020

The judgment of the original court shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds for appeal are determined.

1. According to an organization agreement, etc., if a worker retires before the due date of a regular bonus paid at a certain rate of payment, he/she may request, as remuneration for work, the amount of regular bonus proportional to the previous working period, barring any special provision as to the terms and conditions of payment. Considering the nature as a wage of such regular bonus, in cases where a collective agreement, employment rules, etc. provides that regular bonus shall be paid only to a worker employed at a specific time, and where the former provision provides that regular bonus shall be paid in proportion to the working period, the former provision does not simply state that a person who provided his/her work at a certain time does not entirely pay a regular bonus even if he/she provided his/her work at a certain time on the basis of the former provision. In such cases, it should be carefully determined whether a regular bonus should be paid in proportion to the previous retirement period in accordance with the former provision.

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

A. In the collective agreement concluded with the labor union to which the Plaintiff belongs, the Defendant paid the 1,200% bonus of the amount calculated by adding the class allowances to the 30-day amount of basic pay (hereinafter “the instant regular bonus”) on the basis that 100% of the monthly wage payment date is paid (Article 45).

B. With respect to the instant regular bonus, Article 98 of the Employment Rule provides, “The Company shall pay a bonus of 1,200% per annum in installments (Paragraph 1). The rate of payment shall be fixed at 1,200% of the amount calculated by adding the class allowances to the 30 days of basic pay (Paragraph 2), the period of bonus payment shall be 100% at the time of monthly payment (Paragraph 3), the bonus payment shall not be made (Paragraph 4), the bonus payment shall be made only to the person who is in office as of 20 days (Paragraph 5). If the number of working days falls short of the number of working days, the bonus payment shall be made on a daily basis (Paragraph 6).” Article 85 of the Employment Rule provides, “Where the number of working days falls short of the number of working days due to the employee’s death or death, the calculation shall be made on the basis of the prescribed working hours.”

D. Meanwhile, on January 29, 2007, Defendant dismissed the Plaintiffs as of March 31, 2007. However, at the time, Defendant calculated and paid the Plaintiffs, who had not been dismissed as of April 20, 2007, as of March 21, 2007, to the period of work from March 21, 2007 to March 31, 2007, on the basis of the annual bonus of this case corresponding to the period of work.

3. Examining the following circumstances revealed through this fact-finding in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant provision alone cannot be readily concluded that: (a) the purport of this case’s regular bonus is not paid to a person who did not work on the 20th day of each month, even if he/she provided labor.

(a) The instant regular bonus, which is regularly and continuously paid according to the annual payment rate of 1,200% on the basis of the collective agreement and the rules of employment, constitutes wages which are the remuneration for labor.

B. It is understood that Article 98(6) of the Employment Rules provides that the Defendant’s payment of the instant regular bonus to the Plaintiffs, who had been dismissed, in proportion to the number of days during which the instant regular bonus was provided, shall be calculated on an irregular basis, taking into account the nature as the wage of the instant regular bonus. As seen earlier, it can be seen that the Defendant’s payment of the instant regular bonus to the Plaintiffs who had been dismissed was based on the application of Articles 85 and 98(6) of the Employment Rules.

D. Unlike the case of the instant regular bonus payment against Plaintiff B, there is no data from the Defendant to verify the fact that the Defendant did not pay the instant regular bonus to the retired worker on the 20th day of each month on the basis of the period of work before his retirement.

4. Ultimately, the lower court should have carefully determined whether the instant regular bonus is not paid to a person who, even if a person provided labor in king, did not hold office on the 20th day of each month, even before the retirement on the 20th day of each month, or even before the 20th day of each month, determined to pay the instant regular bonus in proportion to the period of his/her service, by examining the following circumstances: (a) the current status of the instant regular bonus payment to other workers who retired prior to every 20th day of each month; and (b) the perception of labor and management on the terms of the instant regular bonus payment.

Nevertheless, the lower court, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined that the instant regular bonus is qualified to receive the benefits of being in service at a specific point of time, and even if a worker provided labor, it is not entitled to receive the instant regular bonus during the pertinent period if the worker retires before a specific point of time, and thus lacks high-quality, etc., the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the fixedness is not denied in the scope of payment in proportion to the period of service, in fact, even if the employee retires before a specific point of time.

Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the terms of payment of regular bonuses and ordinary wages, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to logic and experience, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

5. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the 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 by the assent of all participating Justices

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Ansan-chul

Justices Kim Jong-hwan