Plaintiff 1 and 25 others (Law Firm Cheongan, Attorneys Kim Jong-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Cho Young-ro et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 5, 2007

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2005Kahap8989 Decided August 25, 2006

1. The part against the defendant among the part against the plaintiff 2, 5, and 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and each of the plaintiffs' claims against the revocation shall be dismissed.

2. The part against the defendant, other than plaintiffs 2, 5, and 19 in the judgment of the court of first instance, which exceeds the following order for payment, shall be revoked, and each of the above plaintiffs' claims as to the cancellation shall be dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 2, 5, and 19 the amount of money in the attached Form 2, each of the corresponding money in the "statement of calculation of retirement allowances", and each of them shall be paid 5% per annum from the corresponding day to November 30, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. All remaining appeals against the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs 2, 5, and 19 are dismissed.

4. The appeal costs against plaintiffs 2, 5, and 19 shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, and 60% of the total litigation costs incurred between the plaintiffs other than the above plaintiffs and the defendant shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from the day after each corresponding day to the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment of the copy of the complaint of this case among the corresponding money stated in the "amount of claim" in the "amount of retirement allowance calculation sheet" in attached Form 2 to each of the corresponding money in the same attached Form.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against each of the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed in entirety.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1 to Eul evidence 26-6, Eul evidence 2-2 through Eul evidence 56, Eul evidence 64-1 to 66-3, Eul evidence 66-1, 2, Eul evidence 67-1 to 67-2, Eul evidence 72-2 to 74-2, and Eul evidence 74-2 to Eul evidence 74-2, and the testimony of the non-party witness.

A. Status of the parties

(1) The defendant (the name of the defendant was changed on May 15, 200, and June 17, 2005) is a company with the purpose of providing a consulting service for the establishment of a reasonable business management method and system.

The plaintiffs are retired on each corresponding day in the "number of continuous employment years" in the attached Table 2 "number of continuous employment years" as stated in the "number of continuous employment years" as stated in the "number of continuous employment years" as stated in the same attached Table, and the plaintiffs are recorded in the corresponding column in the "number of continuous employment years" as stated in the same attached Form. However, the plaintiffs were enrolled in each corresponding column in the "number of continuous employment years" as stated in the "number of continuous employment years" as stated in the same attached Table. However, the plaintiffs were enrolled in the defendant on each corresponding day as stated in the "number of continuous employment years" as stated in the above "number of days of continuous employment years," and

B. Change in the Defendant’s form of payment such as wages

(1) On May 1, 1997, the Defendant amended the remuneration provision. According to Article 5 of the above amended remuneration provision, the annual salary amount stipulated in the annual salary agreement concluded through consultation with each employee shall be divided into the basic annual salary consisting of salary, overtime work allowances, maternity allowances, etc., retirement allowances, annual allowances, and performance-based incentives based on achievements.

D. As regards workers who entered into an annual salary contract with the performance salary system from January 1, 1998 to January 1, 1998, the Defendant paid a certain amount of the annual salary and piece rates based on monthly performance rates. For workers who entered into an annual salary contract with the performance salary system, the Defendant paid the piece rates based on their achievements once a year after the payment of the fixed annual salary. The amount equivalent to 1/13 of the total amount of the fixed annual salary and performance rates based on the performance rates shall be included in the annual salary as well as the annual salary. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 30,50,500, 1999 to May 31, 200, 205, and 205, 205, 30,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000 won.

Referencely, the Defendant revised the remuneration provision on January 1, 2002 to make the interim adjustment of the retirement allowance every month and to pay the retirement allowance included in the salary. When concluding the annual salary contract, the Defendant revised the interim adjustment system of retirement allowance with the main contents that clearly distinguish the total annual salary by each worker from the main salary, allowances, retirement allowances, bonus, etc. The main contents of the amended remuneration provision and the detailed rules of the enforcement of the remuneration provision are as stated in the attached Table 3.

⑷ 이에 따라 2002. 1. 1. 이후에는 원고들로부터 연봉신청서를 받아 이에 근거하여 연봉액 결정 등에 관한 개인별 협의과정을 거친 후 근로계약기간을 1년으로 정하여 연봉계약을 체결하였는데, 원고 17, 26, 18을 제외한 나머지 원고들은 지원직렬 및 연구직렬에 속하여 고정급 연봉제의 급여체제에 기한 연봉계약서를, 영업직렬에 속하는 원고 17, 26, 18은 성과급 연봉제에 의한 연봉계약서를 작성하였다(다만 원고 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 24의 경우 위와 같은 내용으로 매년 체결하는 수차례의 연봉계약 중 일부 근로계약기간을 대상으로 하는 연봉계약서에 서명·날인이 누락되어 있으나, 위에서 본 바와 같은 연봉계약의 체결과정 및 그 연봉계약서에 정한 연봉총액의 내역에 따라 해당 근로계약기간 동안 임금 및 퇴직금을 지급받은 점 등을 고려하면, 이 경우에도 피고와 위 원고들 사이에 그 연봉계약서에서 약정한 바에 의한 연봉계약이 체결되었다 할 것이다). 위 연봉계약서에 의하면, ㈎ ‘2. 근로조건의 표시’ 중 ‘가. 연봉액의 내역’으로 기본급에 해당하는 본봉, 시간외 근무수당 등 각종 수당 및 상여금(이 중 연 400% 상당 상여금은 고정급 연봉제에 한하고, 영업직렬에 속하여 성과급 연봉제에 의하여 성과급을 지급받는 원고 17, 26의 경우에는 다른 원고들과 달리 상여금이 0원이다)과 함께 1년에 1개월 평균임금 상당액인 퇴직금의 1년간 지급총액과 이를 각 12등분하여 매월 분할 지급되는 금액을 명확하게 제시하였고, ㈏ ‘나. 연봉액 지급방법’의 항목으로, ‘① 근로자는 직책과 직무목표 등을 감안하여 연봉액을 결정하였으며, 해당 연봉액은 근로자가 조직의 일원으로 회사에 제공한 근로에 대한 포괄적인 대가로 인식하고 책정한 금액으로서, 통상적인 개념의 월급여, 상여금, 시간외 근무수당, 제수당과 기간 중 발생한 퇴직금을 포함한 총액임을 확인합니다. ② 매출실적에 따라 지급되는 성과급은 보수규정시행세칙에 따라 매월 지급한다. ⑤ 연봉총액의 내역 중 연차수당, 퇴직금은 1년 근속기간이 되는 날에 지급한다. 단 근로자가 매월 급여일에 연차 및 퇴직금액의 지급을 요청할 경우 그에 따른다. ⑧ 근로자는 본인의 자유의사에 따라 퇴직금을 매월 단위로 중간 정산하여, 정규 급여지급일에 지급해 줄 것을 요청합니다(위 조항 옆에는 연봉계약을 체결하는 근로자가 직접 기명과 서명을 하였다). ⑪ 연봉계약은 피고의 취업규칙, 보수규정, 보수규정시행세칙을 면밀히 검토한 후에 결정한 계약이므로 연봉계약서에 표시되지 않은 구체적인 사항은 피고 제규정의 적용을 받을 것을 확약합니다.’라고 기재되어 있다.

After that, the Plaintiffs received each month the amount of money in the name of a retirement allowance stated in part of the annual salary under the above annual salary contract from the Defendant as the item explicitly stating “retirement allowance”. The specific amount is as stated in the column of “prepaid retirement allowance” in the attached Table 2 “year 2002 through 2005.”

(v) Meanwhile, the Defendant’s net income was KRW 1,672,293,446 in 200, and increased to KRW 3,247,638,216 in 201, but has decreased to KRW 379,984,621 in 202, and has decreased to KRW 19,547,623 in 203.

C. The plaintiffs' retirement allowance amount

The Plaintiffs’ average wages, which serve as the basis for the calculation of the amount of retirement allowances to be paid by the Defendant, refer to the amount calculated by dividing the total amount of wages paid to the Plaintiffs for three months prior to their retirement by the total number of days during the pertinent period. In this context, the Plaintiffs’ total amount of wages paid for three months prior to their retirement, excluding money in the name of retirement allowances paid each month under annual salary system from the annual salary amount paid by the Defendant for the above period. In the case of Plaintiffs 17 and 26, it is premised upon the premise that the monthly salary amount shall be included in the calculation of the amount of bonuses paid each month in accordance with the salary system for the performance-based annual salary system ( Plaintiff 18 was paid under the performance-based annual salary system, but did not actually receive the bonuses), “average wages” in [Attachment 2] and [Attachment 3] list of retirement allowances calculated by dividing the total amount of wages paid for three months prior to their retirement by 38,038,256,489,379,9789.

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Occurrence of liability to pay retirement allowances;

(1) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the relevant money as stated in the "retirement Allowance Calculation Table" in attached Form 2 to the plaintiffs and its delay damages.

Luxembourg The plaintiffs asserts to the effect that the amount of the annual salary received by the defendant for three months before retirement, including money in the name of the retirement allowance, is the total amount of the wages paid by the defendant during the calculation period of the average wage, on the premise that all the money and valuables paid to the worker as the remuneration for the work are, in principle, wages that belong to the ordinary wage, regardless of the name of the work, provided by the defendant every month since 2002.

However, the following facts revealed: ① the Defendant entered the annual salary system with the Plaintiffs on or after January 1, 202, including the specific details of annual salary as “wages” and entered the amount of various allowances and bonuses, such as overtime work hours, as well as one month’s average wages, and stated the specific amount of the retirement allowances separately from the amount of the retirement allowances paid to the Plaintiffs on or after the three-year basis; ② the Defendant’s payment of the retirement allowances under the former Labor Standards Act is different from the annual salary system’s signature and seal at the end of the annual salary contract, and the Defendant’s payment of the retirement allowances to the Plaintiff on or after the 20-year basis from the annual salary system as stated in the above 20-year basis, including the amount of the retirement allowances paid to the Plaintiffs on or after the 20-year basis. However, the Defendant’s payment of the retirement allowances under the former Labor Standards Act as the retirement allowances under the 20-year average wage system as stated in each of the above 2-year basis is clearly different from the retirement allowances paid to the Plaintiffs.

B. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

(i) Continuation of employment relationship

㈎ 피고는, 원고들이 최초에 피고에 인턴으로 입사하여 일정기간 근무한 후 정식직원으로 채용되었으므로, 퇴직금의 산정기준 중 하나인 계속근로년수를 계산함에 있어서는 정식직원으로서 근무한 기간만을 기준으로 하여야 한다는 취지로 주장한다.

㈏ 그러나 위에서 인정한 바와 같이 원고들이 인턴으로 채용되어 근무하다가 중간에 정식직원으로 채용되어 공백기간 없이 계속 근무한 경우처럼 근속기간 중에 근로제공형태의 변경이 있는 경우에도 인턴으로서의 근무기간과 정식직원으로서의 근무기간을 통산한 기간을 퇴직금 산정의 기초가 되는 계속근로년수로 보아야 할 것이다( 대법원 1995. 7. 11. 선고 93다26168 판결 등 참조). 따라서 앞서 인정한 바와 같이 원고들에게 지급할 퇴직금의 산정기준이 되는 계속근로년수는 원고들이 인턴으로서 피고에 최초로 입사한 날부터 퇴직한 날까지의 기간이라 할 것이고, 이에 반하는 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

Doz. Whether this includes Doz. piece rates

㈎ 피고는, 원고 17, 26의 경우 각 성과급 연봉제의 급여체제에 따라 평균임금 산정기간인 퇴직전 3개월간 지급받은 급여액에는 매월 지급받은 성과급이 포함되어 있는데, 위 성과급은 고정급여가 아니어서 근로제공의 대가로 볼 수 없으므로 평균임금의 계산시 평균임금 산정기간 동안 피고로부터 지급받은 임금의 총액에서 제외되어야 한다고 주장한다.

㈏ 피고의 보수규정 제9조 및 보수규정 시행세칙 제3조, 제8조, 제9조에 의하면, 고정급 연봉제는 연봉총액을 월정보수액과 상여금으로 나누어 매수 보수지급일에 지급하는 것이고, 영업직렬 근로자에게 적용되는 성과급 연봉제는 연봉총액 이외에 별도로 매출액에 따른 성과급을 매월 계산하여 매월 보수지급일에 지급하도록 규정되어 있는 사실과 영업직렬에 속하는 원고 17, 26은 피고와 성과급 연봉제에 의한 연봉계약을 체결한 후 보수지급일에 근로자 개인 및 그가 속한 팀의 매출액에 따라 보수규정 시행세칙 제17조에서 정한 일정한 방식에 의하여 계산한 성과급을 지급받은 대신에 고정급 연봉제에 의한 연봉계약을 체결한 다른 원고들과는 달리 상여금을 지급받지 아니한 사실은 각 앞에서 인정한 바와 같다. 이에 의하면, 영업직렬에 속하는 직원인 원고 17, 26은, 다른 원고들이 본봉과 각종 수당 이외에 일정액의 상여금을 연봉총액으로 지급받는 대신에, 그 업무의 특수성 등을 고려하여 상여금이 그 항목에 포함되어 있지 아니한 연봉총액 이외에 별도로 매출액을 기초로 보수규정 시행세칙이 정하는 일정한 방식에 따라 계산한 성과급을 매월 보수지급일에 지급받아 온 것으로, 그 금액이 확정되어 있는 상여금과는 달리 그 구체적 액수의 결정 방법만을 달리하여 관련 규정에 정하여진 일정한 방식에 의하여 계산한 금액을 매월 계속적, 정기적으로 지급받아 온 것이므로, 원고 17, 26에게 지급된 위 성과급 역시 그 성격으로 보아 근로의 대가인 임금에 해당하여 퇴직금 산정의 기준이 되는 평균임금의 계산시 평균임금 산정기간 동안 피고로부터 지급받은 임금의 총액에 포함되는 것으로 보아야 한다( 대법원 2002. 8. 23. 선고 2002다4399 판결 등 참조). 결국 피고의 위 주장 역시 이유 없다.

【Interim Settlement of Retirement Benefits

㈎ 원고의 주장

(a) First, the Defendant knew that at the time of concluding the annual salary contract until 2001, the Plaintiff 1, 14, 15, 16, and 17 included the retirement allowance in the pertinent annual salary and, in fact, signed to the effect that the amount of the retirement allowance is confirmed by his own will after the expiration of the annual salary contract and that the receipt thereof is confirmed, the above Plaintiffs agreed on the interim settlement of the retirement allowance between the Defendant and the Defendant. Accordingly, the payment of the interim settlement of the retirement allowance by 201 to the above Plaintiffs is valid, and accordingly, the continuous employment year for the above Plaintiffs should be calculated from the following day of the interim settlement of the retirement allowance to the retirement day.

(b) Next, the defendant asserts that, after January 1, 2002, after entering into an annual salary system with the plaintiffs, the defendant does not have any obligation to pay retirement allowances separately to the plaintiffs as the total annual salary.

㈏ 판단

(a) Article 34(1) of the former Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall establish a system under which an employee shall pay an average wage of not less than 30 days for one year of continuous employment as retirement allowance to a retired employee. Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that an employer may, upon a request of an employee, settle accounts of and pay a retirement allowance for the continuous employment period before the employee’s retirement, and in such case, the continuous employment period for the subsequent settlement of retirement allowance shall be newly reckoned from the time of settlement of accounts. In addition, as long as an employment contract exists as the right to claim a retirement allowance under Article 34(1) of the former Labor Standards Act does not arise only when the termination of the employment relationship, in principle, there is no room for an employer to pay a retirement allowance for each month of continuous employment, even if the employer agreed to do so, it is not effective as retirement allowance payment under Article 34(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which includes an agreement to receive a retirement allowance under the same monthly wage, which is an interim payment requirement for the retirement allowance of 20.27.20.

(b) In the instant case, the fact that the Defendant paid interim retirement allowances to the Plaintiffs, as indicated in the “prepaid Retirement Allowance Calculation Table” in attached Table 2, is as seen earlier.

However, with respect to the payment of interim retirement allowances to Plaintiffs 1, 14, 15, 16, and 17 until the year 2001 for the interim retirement allowances, it is not sufficient to recognize the payment of interim retirement allowances only with regard to whether the above plaintiffs' active and explicit demands concerning interim retirement allowances were made. As to whether there were the above plaintiffs' active and explicit demands for interim retirement allowances, Eul's evidence 3-1 through 7, Eul's evidence 5-1 through 5-3, Eul's evidence 17-1, Eul's evidence 37-2, Eul's evidence 37-2, Eul's evidence 57, and Eul's evidence 66-1, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, each interim retirement allowance is null and void.

In addition, with respect to the payment of interim retirement allowances after 2002 to the plaintiffs, the payment of the annual salary under the annual salary contract concluded by the defendant with the plaintiffs since 2002 shall clearly state the amount of retirement allowances (one-year average wage per one year) and the amount to be received each month under the most annual salary contract concluded by the defendant with the plaintiffs, and may be acknowledged that in the payment method of the annual salary, the payment method of the annual salary requires the workers to sign at their own discretion after explaining that "the workers shall make an interim settlement of the retirement allowance on a monthly basis according to their own will and make a request for the payment on the regular salary payment date." However, according to the above legal principles, the payment of the above amount in the form of retirement allowance under the annual salary contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant cannot be deemed as effective as the payment of retirement allowance under Article 34 (1) of the former Labor Standards Act. The agreement itself under such annual salary contract constitutes a waiver of the right

Ultimately, the defendant's above assertion about interim settlement of retirement allowances is without merit.

x. Offsets against the claim for return of unjust enrichment

㈎ 피고는, 설령 원고들에게 중간정산퇴직금을 지급한 것이 구 근로기준법 제34조 에 의한 퇴직금의 지급으로서 효력이 없다면 위 돈은 법률상 원인 없이 지급된 부당이득이 된다 할 것이므로, 원고들이 피고에게 반환하여야 할 위 돈 상당의 부당이득반환채권으로 피고의 원고들에 대한 퇴직금채권을 대등액에서 상계한다고 항변한다.

㈏ 피고가 원고 1, 14, 15, 16, 17과 2001년까지 각 연봉계약을 체결한 후 위 원고들에게 그 근로계약기간의 만료 이후 당시 시행되던 피고의 보수 관련 규정에 근거하여 계산한 업적연봉으로 업적에 따른 성과급과 연차수당을 지급하면서 ‘업적연봉과 기본연봉 총액을 13분한 금액’을 퇴직금으로 명시하여 별지2 ‘퇴직금 산정표’의 ‘기지급 퇴직금’ 중 ‘1999년 내지 2001년’란 기재와 같은 금액을 지급한 사실, 피고는 이와는 별도로 2000. 9. 30. 원고 1에게 1995. 8. 7.부터 1999. 2. 28.까지의 계속근로년수에 대하여 한 평균급여 1,250,000원을 기초로 한 퇴직금으로 4,375,000원을 지급한 사실, 한편 원고들은 2002. 1. 1. 이후 피고와의 사이에 체결한 연봉계약에 의하여 피고로부터 ‘퇴직금’이라는 항목과 그 구체적 액수가 명확하게 제시된 퇴직금 명목의 돈인 별지2 ‘퇴직금 산정표’의 ‘기지급 퇴직금’란 중 ‘2002년 내지 2005년’란에 기재된 금액을 매월 균분하여 지급받은 사실은 앞에서 인정한 바와 같다. 그리고 앞에서 살펴본 바와 같이 위 피고가 원고들에게 2002년부터 매월 지급한 연봉액 중 ‘퇴직금’ 명목으로 지급된 돈은 임금에 포함된다고 할 수 없고, 위 1999년부터 2001년까지 지급한 퇴직금 명목의 돈 역시 업적에 따른 성과급과 연차수당에 추가하여 그 액수를 명시한 퇴직금으로 지급된 돈으로 임금에 포함될 수 없으며, 또한 위 각 돈은 그 명목대로 퇴직금 지급으로서 법률상 효력이 없으므로, 결국 원고들은 법률상 원인 없이 위 퇴직금 명목으로 지급된 돈 상당의 이익을 그로 인하여 피고에 같은 액수만큼의 손해를 입게 하였다 할 것이므로 이를 반환할 의무가 있다.

However, the plaintiffs' retirement allowance claim against the defendant was due due to retirement on each of the corresponding days stated in the "number of continuous service years" in the annexed Table 2 "Retirement Allowance Calculation Table", and the plaintiffs' retirement allowance claim corresponding to the amount stated in the "total" column of the above plaintiffs' above claim against the defendant and the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant was set off on the same day. It is evident in the record that the defendant stated in the preparatory document as of June 22, 2007, which contains a declaration of set-off against the above amount of claim at the first preparatory date of this court on June 27, 2007, which was clearly stated in the record that the defendant stated in the preparatory document as of June 22, 2007, the above retirement allowance claim of the plaintiffs was extinguished from the above unjust enrichment claim against the defendant against the defendant retroactively from the above set-off date, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs after that retirement allowance are as stated in the "amount in the annexed Table 2" column. The defendant's defense for offset is reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining plaintiffs except for the plaintiff 2, 5, and 19 (hereinafter referred to as the "Baman's retirement allowance calculation sheet") at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act until November 30, 2007, which is the day following the 14 days (the due date of retirement allowance payment) under Article 36 of the former Labor Standards Act from each applicable day to the day after the 14th (the due date of retirement allowance payment) period in the attached Table 2's calculation table of retirement allowance" as to the corresponding money and the corresponding money in the attached Table 2's calculation table. The defendant is also obligated to accept all of the plaintiffs' claims within the scope of recognition, and all of the remaining part of the plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant 2, 5, and 19 of the judgment against the defendant's judgment against the plaintiff 2, 25, and 19 of the judgment against the plaintiff 2, 2007. The remaining part of the judgment against the plaintiff 1 is dismissed.

[Attachment 1 and 2]

Judges Kim Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)