(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.4.12. 선고 2016구단30852 판결

1. On January 21, 2016, the Defendant’s decision to pay a site for the wage peak system to the Plaintiff shall be revoked. 2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 14, 2013, the Plaintiff is a person who served as an assistant to the trustee in bankruptcy of the Korea Savings Bank, Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation.

B. On March 13, 2015, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation amended the Rules of Employment, which is an assistance to the business of the bankrupt estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of Employment"), and the main contents are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

C. Even after the Plaintiff reached the retirement age of 58 years of age on December 31, 2013 pursuant to the former Rules of Employment before the amendment, the Plaintiff entered into each employment contract with the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation every several months and was paid KRW 3.5 million each month. However, the Plaintiff received KRW 2.5 million each month after concluding the employment contract after the amendment.

D. Accordingly, on January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of subsidies for wage peak system during the period from April 30, 2015 to December 31, 2015 pursuant to Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act, and Article 28(1)1 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act.

E. However, the Defendant, however, limited to a person who reaches the retirement age after the enforcement of the wage peak system, and the Plaintiff already reached the retirement age on March 13, 2013, which was before the enforcement of the wage peak system, made a decision on January 21, 2016 to the Plaintiff on January 21, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff is not eligible for the subsidy of the wage peak system (hereinafter referred to as “disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute exists, and the purport of the entire statement in subparagraphs 1 through 3 and the argument as a whole.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the Employment Insurance Act, the Plaintiff constitutes a person eligible for subsidies for wage peak system regardless of whether the Plaintiff reached the retirement age at the time of enforcement of the wage peak system. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 28(1)1 and 28(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act stipulate only those who are employed by a business owner and have continuously worked for at least 18 months after the age of 55 when the business owner extends the retirement age with the consent of the representative of workers, and have been employed by the business owner for at least 18 months and have lower the wage rate than the wage in the pertinent year, and do not stipulate that those who have yet to be paid the retirement age at the time of the enforcement of the Employment Insurance Act

2) It can be deemed as a reasonable and unfounded discriminatory interpretation that is a worker of a business owner who has concluded a contract with a person who has not yet passed the retirement age at the time of the enforcement of the wage peak system or a re-contract after the arrival of the retirement age, and that it is not eligible for the subsidy for the wage peak system, even though the wage peak system was enforced through the labor representative

3) Rather, the purpose of the wage peak system is to guarantee the employment of the aged through the extension of retirement age, but reduces the burden of labor costs. The payment of the wage peak system is to promote the activation of the wage peak system by maintaining the existing living standard for the aged whose wage has been reduced by the wage peak system, and ultimately, it seems that deeming the person who entered into a contract after the retirement age to be eligible for the wage peak system to be eligible for the payment of the wage peak system if he/she is paid the wage after the extension of retirement age by reducing the part of the wage.

4) In particular, Article 37(2) of the Rules of Employment provides that "the monthly remuneration limit shall be 2.5 million won by the application of the wage peak system after the amendment." Accordingly, it is apparent that the Plaintiff's wage has been reduced to 2.5 million won by the application of the wage peak system in the case of the Plaintiff. In the case of the Plaintiff, it is an interpretation that only the unilateral wage reduction to the Plaintiff does not conform to the legislative purpose of the Employment Insurance Act.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.