2017Da279524 Wages

A

B A.

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Jeonju District Court Decision 2016Na2706 Decided October 20, 2017

October 18, 2019

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In full view of the contents and structure of Article 50(1) and (2), Article 53(1), Article 55, and Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”) and Article 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29010, Jun. 29, 2018); legislative intent and purpose revealed through the history of the enactment and amendment of the former Labor Standards Act; awareness of the parties to labor relations; existing labor practices; and the Addenda of the amended Labor Standards Act, holiday work hours under the former Labor Standards Act are not included in “40 hours of weekly standard working hours; and “12 hours of weekly overtime work hours”; thus, additional wages and overtime work hours under holiday work cannot be paid in duplicate (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da13111, Jun. 21, 2018).

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that premium pay for holiday work and overtime work should be paid in duplicate. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the meaning of “one week” as stipulated in Articles 50 and 53 of the former Labor Standards Act, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the payment of premium pay for holiday work and overtime work under Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, in order that money and valuables paid by an employer to an employee constitutes wages, the said money and valuables should first be paid as the employee’s work. Although such money and valuables were continuously and regularly paid, if it cannot be deemed that they were paid as the employee’s work. In determining whether certain money and valuables were paid as the employee’s work, the occurrence of the obligation to pay money and valuables can be deemed directly related to the provision of work or closely related thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da55934, May 12, 1995; 201Da23149, Jul. 14, 201). The employer implemented a selective welfare program that receives welfare benefits by voluntarily selecting welfare benefits according to his/her employee’s preference and needs among various welfare items, and then, it does not constitute wages under the collective agreement that continuously allocates the amount equivalent to welfare points to employees by using the purchasing method or welfare cards, etc. at an employee-only online shopping site.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, as part of the selective welfare program, the Defendant, as part of the selective welfare program, paid the welfare card (after-paid debit card) to all full-time workers including the Plaintiff (400,000 won per annum from 2006, 800,000 won per annum from 2009, and 1.2 million won per annum from 201) in a lump sum in January each year. ② The welfare card was restricted for the use of health care, self-development, cultural life welfare, etc., and the employee was voluntarily selected and used within the limited items, ③ the purchase of goods, etc. in line with the limited use, the Defendant settled the amount of the card used by the employees to the financial institution issuing the welfare card after paying the amount of the card used by the employees, ④ the amount not used by the employee within two years without carrying over or refunding it.

According to the above facts, the welfare card cost that the Defendant allocated to regular employees including the Plaintiff does not differ from the welfare points and their substance stated in the above legal principles. Thus, it does not constitute wages under the Labor Standards Act, but does not constitute ordinary wages.

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the instant welfare card expense constituted wages and ordinary wages that serve as the basis for calculating the average wage. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the wage nature of the welfare card fee or ordinary wages, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Gin-soo