(영문) 대법원 2019.5.30.선고 2015다244012 판결

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs except the plaintiff C is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff C's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal between Plaintiff C and the Defendant are assessed against Plaintiff C.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to whether or not the ordinary wage of an installment allowance is ordinary

The lower court rejected Plaintiff C’s claim seeking additional statutory allowances, including ordinary wages, on the grounds that the workers deemed to have provided their paid holiday work for five days as stipulated in the instant collective agreement, and that the premium allowance, which is an additional payment thereof, was not for contractual work, and thus, did not constitute ordinary wages. Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding ordinary wages or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the

2. As to the completion of extinctive prescription of some annual leave allowances

The lower court determined that: (a) the claim for the unpaid annual leave allowance, including March 2, 2012, for which three years have elapsed since the date on which the Plaintiffs filed a claim for the unpaid annual leave allowance, was due and payable; and (b) the period of prescription expired. Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on extinctive prescription, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to whether bonuses, including ordinary wages, violate the principle of good faith in claiming additional legal allowances.

A. The principle of trust and good faith (hereinafter “the principle of trust and good faith”) refers to an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship should not exercise a right or perform an obligation in a manner that violates the principle of trust and good faith, taking into account the other party’s interest. In order to deny the exercise of such right on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, it should be given to the other party, or objectively deemed that the other party has a good faith, and the exercise of the right against the other party’s good faith should reach an extent that is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice.

If the contents of a labor-management agreement, such as a collective agreement, are null and void in violation of the Labor Standards Act’s compulsory provisions, the assertion on the invalidity of the labor-management agreement would be dismissed on the ground that it is an exercise of rights contrary to the good faith principle, and thus, such assertion is not in violation of the good faith principle. However, it is not a violation of the good faith principle. However, the application of the good faith principle does not exclude the assertion on the invalidity of the labor-management agreement, on the ground that the contents of the labor-management agreement violate the compulsory provisions of the Labor Standards Act. Not only is it necessary to satisfy the general requirements to apply the good faith principle but also it is not permissible to assert the invalidity of the labor-management agreement as it violates the good faith principle, even in exceptional

Under the premise that a regular bonus in a labor-management agreement does not per se constitute ordinary wages, in cases where the labor-management agreement agrees to exclude a regular bonus from the standard for calculating ordinary wages and setting wage level on the premise thereof, an employee is required to add a regular bonus to ordinary wages and pay additional statutory allowances based on this, thereby causing serious managerial difficulties or endanger the existence of an enterprise, which would be remarkably contrary to the concept of justice and equity (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399, Dec. 18, 2013).

However, it is necessary to sufficiently consider the legislative intent of the Labor Standards Act, which intends to establish the minimum standard of working conditions and guarantee and improve the basic livelihood of workers when determining whether to preferentially apply the principle of good faith, rather than the mandatory provisions governing labor relations. Moreover, the management status of an enterprise is an employer, and the corporate management status may change from time to time according to various economic and social circumstances. Thus, if it is rejected on the ground that the employee’s claim for additional statutory allowances in accordance with the determination of ordinary wage’s property would cause serious managerial difficulties or endanger the existence of the enterprise, it may result in the actual transfer of risks arising from the

Therefore, whether a worker’s demand for additional legal allowances violates the good faith principle should be determined carefully and strictly as it causes serious managerial difficulties to the employer or may endanger the existence of the company (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da217287, Feb. 14, 2019).

B. Examining the following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the payment of additional statutory allowances by including bonuses into ordinary wages would cause serious managerial difficulties to the Defendant or endanger the existence of the company. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiffs’ claim for the remaining Plaintiffs’ statutory allowances, other than Plaintiff C, cannot be deemed as violating the good faith principle.

1) In the instant case, compared with the amount of the additional statutory allowances recognized to the Plaintiffs and the amount of the Defendant’s net income or cash and cash assets, the Defendant seems to be able to cope with the additional statutory allowances.

2) As recognized by the lower court, the Defendant has a large amount of liabilities of the Defendant, and the Defendant incurred a business loss in 2014, but the Defendant continued to record the net income for the same period, and the Defendant continued to hold cash and cash assets in accordance with the Defendant’s statement of financial position that was submitted and deliberated at the lower court.

3) The defendant, under the application of the bus completion management system, is settled by claiming change expenses (working expenses, maintenance expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses, vehicle repair expenses, vehicle repair expenses, vehicle repair expenses, height expenses, basic profits, etc.) and total transport expenses (working expenses of executive officers and employees in charge of operation, vehicle repair expenses, vehicle repair expenses, vehicle repair expenses, vehicle repair expenses, basic profits, etc.) to AO which jointly manages the transportation revenue, and seems to be able to operate a stable business unless there are special circumstances, as the standard transport cost difference between the transport cost and the transport cost is provided through the above incorporated association through the above incorporated association. 4) Even if the bonus is included in ordinary wages, if the ordinary wage of the defendant's employee is considerably increased compared to the agreed ordinary wage, and the total wage of the defendant would be a new financial burden that the defendant would not have predicted, in light of the amount of additional statutory allowances recognized in this case, the court below determined that the defendant's appeal is not in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence due to the payment of additional legal allowances, or there is no sufficient ground to deem the plaintiff's appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs except for the plaintiff C is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal by the plaintiff C is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal between the plaintiff C and the defendant are assessed against the plaintiff C. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.