‘재직 조건’ 정기상여금의 통상임금성

권오성(Kwon, Oh Seong) 중앙법학회 2018 中央法學 Vol.20 No.2

고정급 형태의 정기상여금은 실질적으로는 소정근로의 제공에 대하여 지급하기로 약속한 소정임금의 성격이 강하다. 정기상여금을 소정근로에 대한 대가로 이해할 경우 이러한 금품은 ‘매월 정기일지급 임금’에 해당한다고 볼 수 있다. 따라서 1개월을 초과하는 기간을 지급주기로 하여 고정급의 정기상여금을 지급하기로 하는 약정은 근로기준법 제42조 제2항 본문에 위반한다. 이러한 정기상여금에 ‘재직일 조건’을 붙이는 방법으로 ‘임금을 비임금화’하는 것은 매월 정기일지급 임금, 금품청산의 원칙, 임금채권의 사전포기의 금지, 강제근로의 금지 등 근로기준법의 강행규정과 공서(公序)에 반한다. 따라서 정기상여금에 붙은 ‘재직 조건’은 위법·무효라고 할 것이다. 이러한 관점에서 보면, ‘재직 조건’이 붙은 정기상여금의 통상임금성을 부정한 2017년의 대법원 판결들은 임금의 지급일 이전에 퇴사하더라고 이미 제공된 근로의 대가는 당연히 지급되어야 한다는 일반적인 이해와는 정반대로 임금 지급일 이전에 퇴직한자에게는 지급하지 않는다는 조건이 붙은 임금은 소정근로의 대가가 아니라고 판단하였는바, 이는 사용자가 근로자에게 지급하기로 약속한 금품의 성격이 무엇인가를 직접적으로 살피지 않고 그러한 금품의 지급에 ‘재직 조건’이 붙어 있다는 이유로 그러한 금품의 통상임금성을 부정하였다는 점에서 문제가 있다. The regular bonus could be merely paid at regular intervals by being accumulated to correspond to the fixed work schedule. Therefore regular bonus is paid for contractual working and can not be accepted in the concept of thf ‘discretionary bonus’. That means regular bonus of fixed type payment is a deferred payment wage paid later after accumulating rewards of contractual working for months. So regular bonus of that type is under the principle of regular payment on wages and such a payment system would violate the Labor Standards Act. And the addition of the ‘incumbent condition’ to regular bonus would violate the provisions of the Labor Standards Act. Thus, if the incumbent condition added to the regular bonus means it would be not paid to the full extent of the regular bonus, that condition may be invalid as unlawful condition. It can only be interpreted that the portion corresponding to the period which is not providing the predetermined work would be reduced and not be paid.

명절상여금의 통상임금성과 통상임금소송에서의 신의칙항변- 대법원 2021. 12. 16. 선고 2016다7975 판결을 중심으로 -

임상민 대한변호사협회 2022 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.510

The Korean Supreme Court recently rendered an important decision with regard to the jurisprudence on ordinary wages. The Court’s opinion was laid out in its decision rendered on December 16, 2021 in its case of “2016Da7975”. This decision covered two important issues: One is whether holiday bonuses are considered as ordinary wages; the other is whether or not to acknowledge the principle of trust and good-faith as a valid counterargument in an ordinary wage lawsuit for claiming regular bonuses. First, the Supreme Court held that holiday bonuses constitute as ordinary wages, even though the retired employees were not actually paid through a customary fashin in pro rata per days worked. The main reasons for this decision were that the applicable rules of employment had set the payment period to the year before the retirement, which was to be paid in pro rata per days worked and calculated at the time of termination. This decision is contrasted with its previous Supreme Court decision 2012Da94643 which held that holiday bonuses are not considered as ordinary wages. The difference can be interpreted as the recent Supreme Court decision did not overlook the ordinary wage nature of the holiday bonuses – not solely basing it on the formality of its holiday bonus payment status – but rather the Court applied a more pragmatic approach by practically treating the holiday bonuses withen the confines of regular bonuses. The decision can be regarded as appropriate. Second, the Supreme Court rejected the principle of trust and good-faith counterargument raised in ordinary wage claim for regular bonuses. The main points of the decision on the second issue are as follows: 1) the decision maintained the legal principle held in the Supreme Court decision of 2015Da217287, i.e., that the principle of trust and good-faith counterargument in an ordinary wage lawsuit should be strictly limited; 2) the decision rendered a new legal principle in that the factor of serious financial difficulties of a company cannot be decided based only on the circumstances discovered at the end of the fact-finding process. Rather, the issues of consideration should be whether the employer was able to foresee the possibility of its future financial difficulties; and whether the employer was able to overcome these difficulties thereafter; and etc,; and 3) the decision specifically discussed certain other factors regarding the serious financial difficulties of a company such as the extent of additional legal allowances, business profits, then-current net profits, and etc. It can be said that the reasoning behind the holding that the principle of trust and good-faith counterargument in ordinary wage lawsuits should be restricted limited, has been correctly rendered. The basis of the Court’s holding are as follows: 1) there are no reasons attributable to the employees; and 2) there is a strong need to establish the nature of mandatory provisions in the Labor Standard Act for the goal of protecting the employees. However, in my opinion, the principle of trust and good-faith counterargument in ordinary wage lawsuit claiming regular bonuses could have been rejected as well on the ground that there is no existing trust that is worth protecting because: 1) the concept of employer’s trust on regular bonuses did not constitute ordinary wages has disappeared after the Supreme Court decision 2012Da89399; and nonetheless; 2) the employer has delayed - by its own negligence - the payment of additional legal allowance, and its result, incurred the serious financial difficulties, the trust of which should not be protected; and therefore, the trust and good-faith counterargument could have been rejected by the Court. 대법원은 최근에 통상임금에 관하여 중요한 판결을 하나 선고하였다. 대법원 2021. 12. 16. 선고 2016다7975 판결이 그것이다. 이 판결은 두 가지 중요한 쟁점을 다룬다. 하나는 명절상여금의 통상임금성을 인정할 것인지 여부이다. 또 하나는 정기상여금 관련 통상임금소송에서 신의칙항변을 받아들일 것인지 여부이다. 우선 위 판결은 비록 실제 관행상 퇴직자에게 일할 지급하지 않았다 하더라도 명절상여금의 통상임금성을 인정하였다. 취업규칙으로 지급대상기간을 지급 전 1년으로 설정하면서 퇴직시 일할 지급하도록 정하고 있음을 주된 근거로 한다. 명절상여금의 통상임금성을 부정한 대법원 2012다94643과 대비된다. 명절상여금이라는 형식만으로 통상임금성을 부정하지 않고, 실질적으로 파악하여 기간상여금과 마찬가지로 취급한 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 타당하다 할 것이다. 다음으로 위 판결은 정기상여금 관련 통상임금소송에서 신의칙항변을 배척하였다. 통상임금소송에서의 신의칙항변과 관련한 위 판결의 요지는 다음과 같다. ① 통상임금소송에서 신의칙항변을 엄격하게 제한하여야 한다는 대법원 2015다217287 판결의 법리를 그대로 유지하였다. ② 중대한 경영상 어려움과 관련하여 사실심변론종결시의 사정만을 기준으로 판단하지 않고, 사용자가 충분히 그 가능성을 예견할 수 있었는지 여부와 향후 극복 가능성이 있었는지 등도 함께 고려하여 판단하여야 한다는 법리를 새로 판시하였다. ③ 추가 법정수당의 규모, 영업이익, 당기순이익 등 중대한 경영상 어려움 초래에 대한 판단요소들을 구체적으로 적시하였다. 통상임금소송에서 신의칙항변을 엄격하게 제한하는 위 판결의 태도는 타당하다 할 것이다. 그 이유는 다음과 같다. ① 근로자의 귀책사유가 없다. ② 근로자 보호를 목적으로 하는 근로기준법의 강행규정성을 확립할 필요가 크다. 다만 ① 대법원 2012다89399 판결 이후로는 정기상여금이 통상임금에 해당하지 않는다는 사용자의 오인(신뢰)은 더 이상 사라졌다는 점, ② 사용자는 그럼에도 자신의 귀책으로 재산정된 추가 법정수당의 지급을 지체하다가 중대한 경영상 어려움을 초래한 점 등을 들어 보호가치 있는 신뢰가 없다는 이유로 신의칙 항변을 배척할 수도 있었던 사안이 아닌가 생각한다.

통상임금 소송에서 신의성실 원칙의 적용에 관한 연구

박지순 ( Ji-soon Park ) 안암법학회 2018 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.56

2013년 12월 18일의 대법원 전원합의체 판결로 고정성을 가진 정기상여금은 더 이상 통상임금에서 제외되어서는 안 된다. 이 판결로 우리 기업들은 과거와 같이 비정상적인 임금구성을 더 이상 유지할 수 없게 되었다. 고정성을 가진 정기상여금이 통상임금에 산입됨으로써 법정수당 산정을 위한 기준임금도 인상되었다. 그 때문에 기업들은 연장 및 야간근로 등에 대한 조정이 불가피해졌고, 근로자들은 통상임금 인상과 연장근로 등의 감소에 따른 임금조정 국면에 진입하게 될 것이다. 그렇지만 정기상여금을 포함하여 재산정한 통상임금을 근거로 과거의 연장근로 등에 대한 추가 법정수당 청구가 허용되는지 여부는 여전히 해명되지 않은 쟁점이다. 정기상여금을 통상임금에서 제외하는 노사합의가 무효라 하더라도 과거 미지급된 법정수당의 추가지급 청구를 신의칙을 적용하여 배제하는 것은 다음과 같은 관점에서 정의와 형평의 관점에서 정당화될 수 있다. 근로자가 받는 전체 급여에서 상여금과 수당이 차지하는 비정상적인 높은 비중은 통상임금의 축소에 대한 반대급부적 성격을 인정할 수 있으며 오랫동안 노사는 임금협약을 통해 이와 같은 임금구조와 구성에 대한 합의를 유지해왔기 때문이다. 반대로 소급해서 추가지급을 허용할 경우 근로자로서는 통상적인 임금인상 효과를 훨씬 상회하는 예상외의 이익을 얻게 되고, 기업 입장에서는 노사합의를 신뢰하여 이를 기초로 수지균형을 맞추며 기업을 경영하여 오다가 추가 지급에 의하여 예측하지 못했던 재정적 부담을 지게 되고, 그로 인하여 중대한 경영상의 어려움을 겪을 수 있다. 따라서 통상임금 소송에서 신의칙 적용을 정당화하는 특별한 사정은 근로자측이 얻게 될 예상외 이익의 규모에 달려 있으며, 기업의 경영상황과 같은 사후적, 우연적 요소는 신의칙 적용의 근거로 삼기 어렵다. As determined by the Supreme Court decision on 18 December 2013, fixed regular bonuses should now be included in ordinary wages. With this case, our corporations are no longer able to maintain the abnormal wage composition as in the past. As a result, companies are forced to adjust for extension and night work, and workers will face the wage adjustment phase due to the increase of ordinary wage and the reduction of overtime work. However, there is still an unresolved problem. The problem is whether or not it is allowed to demand additional legal allowance for overtime work of the past by ordinary wage including regular bonuses. Even if the labor-management agreement which excludes regular bonuses from ordinary wages is nullified, exempting the additional claims of past unpaid statutory pay by applying of the good faith principle can be justified in terms of justice and equity. Above all, It is difficult to judge that workers get objectively financially disadvantaged even if they do not recognize retroactive effects. The abnormally high proportion of bonuses and allowances in the entire salary paid to the workers has clear characteristics resulting from the return of the reduction in wages. For a long time, labor and management have agreed on this wage structure and composition through wage agreements. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court ruling rejected the application of the good faith principle to the demand of the past additional statutory allowances under certain requirements in order to promote the harmony among the principle of trust protection, the legal stability and enforcement regulations. In this perspective, because it does not cause undue infringement on the interests of the workers, there is no reason to worry about the damage to the specific validity of it. Nonetheless, if workers are allowed to be paid additional allowances by rejecting the application of the good faith principle, they will have unexpected additional benefits far exceeding the usual effect of wage increase. From the perspective of the corporations, it is possible for them to face unexpected financial burdens and thereby to suffer serious management difficulties while trusting the labor-management agreement and managing the business to balance between incomings and outgoings based on it. Thus, the special circumstances that justify restricting the retrenchment of labor agreements that exclude periodic bonus from ordinary wage depend on the magnitude of the unexpected benefits that the workers will gain.

정기상여금의 통상임금 해당성에 대한 연구

김희성(Kim Hee-Sung),한광수(Han Gwang-Soo) 한국비교노동법학회 2012 노동법논총 Vol.25 No.-

In this year’s wage negotiations(bargaining), an ordinary wage has emerged as the hot potato. Recently the Supreme Court ruled that “Regular bonuses can be included in the ordinary wages”. After it remanded the case to the High Court, the legal battle over the ordinary wages entered a new phase. Ordinary wages are the basis of the calculation of additional wages, advance-noticed dismissal allowances and an annual paid leave allowances. If regular bonuses are to be included the ordinary wage in the wage negotiations, the wage would be increased very much. After all, it will cause wage rises, heavy financial risks of employers. Moreover, under our nation’s wage system that the employer gives employees many various benefits in addition to the basic salary, the ripple effect will be even greater. Employers wouldn’t give employees the various allowances that they have given for years, or decrease the benefits. Then, the workers would prefer to work overtime to increase their salary. As a result, the work environment would get worse. So we can’t be just happy about that the court has expanded the scope of the ordinary wages. The judgment is checking ‘the regularity’, ‘the equality’, and ‘the fixedness’ which the court considers the judging indicator of the case and it’s also emphasizing the ordinary wage concept in an Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act. But that they have been specified in collective agreements as the basis of payment is not the judging indicator of the ordinary wage, but of the wage. That the court rules that the same amount of money should be paid when it says about the equality makes the meaning of equality limited excessively. Also, about the fixedness, the Supreme Court decides that it’s okay if the standard of payment calculation is established in collective agreements in advance. However, as the collective agreements are changeable because they can be renewed, it is regarded that the court expands the range of requisites for the fixedness. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court because of the insufficiency, and left the decision to the High Court. In this respect, this judgment has limitations because it doesn’t decide whether the regular bonus belongs to ordinary wages or not.

통상임금 판결이 관련 협약규정에 미친 영향과 과제에 대한 고찰

김기우 ( Ki Woo Kim ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2015 法學硏究 Vol.23 No.2

지금까지 우리나라 집단적 노사관계의 특성과 그 동안의 노사관행을 감안할 때, 그리고 사용자 측에 생기는 금전적 부담을 고려할 때, 통상임금에 관한 대법원 판결(대법원 2013. 12. 18. 선고, 2012다89399 판결)이 협약서에 반영되려면 일정한 기간을 거쳐 조정될 가능성이 크다. 그럼에도 사업장마다 통상임금의 기준 및 범위가 어떻게 규정되어 있는지를 살펴보고자 했다. 정말로 조정기를 거치고 있는지 확인할 필요가 있었고, 사업장 협약서에서 통상임금에 정기상여금을 포함하지 않고 기본급과 특정 수당만으로 그 범위를 정한 경우에, 향후 정기상여금을 포함한 통상임금의 확대와 새로운 통상임금의 산정기준에 따라 지급해야 하는 소급분이 있어 그 처리를 정해야 한다면 결국 사업장의 실태가 고려될 수밖에 없기 때문이다. 이에 통상임금 판결 직전, 그 즈음 또는 그 이후 체결된 유효한 단체협약 속 통상임금규정을 고찰하여 위 판결이 협약규정으로 반영되고 있는지, 반영한 경우에는 당사자가 어떻게 규정하고 있는지, 정기상여금을 통상임금의 산입에 포함시킨다고 할 때 사업장마다 그에 관한 사실적 기초가 상이하지는 않은지를 알아보려했다. 그러한 사실적 기초의 상이와 사업장 내 재정능력의 차이가 향후 통상임금의 기준및 범위를 정함에 사업장 내 고려대상이 될 것이고, 이때 노사 간 자발적 조정을 통한 집단적 합의가 필요하다 생각했다. 이에 현재의 통상임금 판결에 이른 판례의 정기성, 일률성, 고정성 요건 완화추이를 살피고, 한국노총 제조업 사업장 협약 속 통상임금규정의 규율내용을 분석하였다. 이를 통상임금 관련 협약규정에 내재된 의미를 고찰하는 이론적 기초로 삼았다. 법원해석의 변화가 협약규정의 변화를 이끌었기 때문이다. 이때 소정 근로의 대가와 관련한 학계의 지적과 제도변화가 갖는 의미뿐 아니라, 노사관계 측면의 요인과 영향도 새겨 보려 했다. 단체협약은 노동조합 활동의 확대, 재생산의 결과물이자 노사라는 집단 사이 합의의 결과물이어서, 지금까지의 해석과 동일한 결론에 도달한다 할지라도 통상임금 판결 및 협약규정에 대한 고찰과 통상임금의 기준 및 범위에 관한 협약규정 마련의 필요성에 관한 주장은 또 다른 통상임금 관련 연구의 근거가 될 뿐 아니라 이 자체로써도 의미 있는 작업이 될 것으로 파악했다. If we were to examine what the main issues are between trade unions and a management organization, we would see that wages; the issue of regular-uniform-fixed bonuses and benefits packages, such as educational expenses, etc., feature prominently. These issues have been frequently changed, though these issues shouldn``t be changed at a time.40) The Korean Supreme Court Decision (2012Da89399, decided December 18, 2013) included the issues mentioned above. Therefore, I think it is opportune to examine whether the effects of the text of the Supreme Court decision will be seen in collective agreements, especially as they relate to regular-uniform-fixed bonuses. When we consider the characteristics of Korean collective industrial relations, the development of industrial relations until now, and the financial burden of maintaining a workplace, a certain period of time may be required for specifying what the ordinary wages are in a written collective agreement. Nevertheless, I have examined how many collective agreements regulate ordinary wages in different workplace agreements. First, this is because whether a certain period is needed before a workplace situation has to be regulated needs to be confirmed. Second, when ordinary wages are calculated without considering regular- uniform-fixed bonuses when, for example, a written agreement only takes account of the basic wage and one or two uniform, fixed allowances? even though trade unions and management organizations have increased the range of ordinary wages in workplace collective agreements, it is presumed that the reality of that workplace will have to be considered. For these reasons, I have researched the differences in the realities of different workplaces, focusing on the manufacturing businesses that come under the FKTU. I believe voluntary conciliatory agreement between trade unions and management organization is needed. With this thought in mind, I have studied the change in jurisprudence as it relates to ordinary wages and researched the regulations on ordinary wages in collective agreements. In so doing, I am seeking to find a means of regulating ordinary wages in collective agreements and to set a theoretical basis for this. Because changes in jurisprudence lead to changes in the regulations governing ordinary wages, at this time, I would like to learn about not only how jurisprudence has changed but also how aspects of industrial relations have changed. A collective agreement comes about through the enlargement and reproduction of a trade union’s activities, and the output is the product of agreement between trade unions and a management organization. As a result, although this research comes to the same conclusion as previous research, the study of how ordinary wages are governed by collective agreement regulations will be a significant work.

정기상여금에 붙은 ‘지급일 재직 조건’의 문제점 — 대상판결: 대법원 2017. 9. 26. 선고 2017다232020 판결 —

권오성 한국비교노동법학회 2017 노동법논총 Vol.41 No.-

In December 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in detail a standard of judgment on ordinary wages in two of Supreme Court en banc decision about KB AutoTech cases. According to one of the two decisions, Dec 18, 2013 pronounced, 2012da94643 sentence, the payment of wages to incumbent workers at a certain point in time would be not ordinary wages because that is not fixed. Since the Supreme Court ruling, it has been argued whether regular bonus with similar conditions corresponds to ordinary wages in many the Lower Courts and different judgments have been made on similar issues. In the two sentences ruled on Sep 27, 2017, the Supreme Court concluded that regular bonus paid only to workers who are employed as of the date of payment was not a normal wage even if the workers provided the work. Because the Supreme Court judged it was not recognized as rewards of contractual working and not fixed. In Korea, it could basically explain that regular bonus, calculated by multiplying the fixed rate on the basic wage, is merely paid at regular intervals by being accumulated to correspond to the fixed work schedule. Therefore, regular bonus is paid for contractual working and can not be accepted in the concept of a bonus in the strict sense. That means regular bonus of fixed type payment is a deferred payment wage paid later after accumulating rewards of contractual working for months. So regular bonus of that type is under the principle of regular payment on wages and such a payment system would be invalid because of violation the Labor Standards Act. In accordance with a principle of the conversion of invalidity, it may be only accepted as a contract to pay regular bonus to the regular monthly payment schedule. The addition of the condition of ‘incumbent condition’ to regular bonus violates the provisions of the Labor Standards Act. Thus, if the incumbent condition added to the regular bonus of fixed wage type means it would be not paid to the full extent of the regular bonus, that condition may be invalid as unlawful condition. It can only be interpreted that the portion corresponding to the period which is not providing the predetermined work would be reduced and not be paid.

최저임금과 정기상여금 ― 해석론을 중심으로 ―

권오성 한국노동법학회 2018 노동법학 Vol.0 No.65

This paper tries to scrutinize the possibility that the regular bonus could be included of the coverage of the minimum wage. On 18. Dec. 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in detail a standard of judgment on ordinary wages in two of Supreme Court en banc decision about KB AutoTech cases. The conclusion of the decisions has changed its doctrine about the concept of the regular rate of wage. According to the changed doctrine, regular bonus should be treated as the regular rate of wage. But regular bonus is still excluded from the coverage of the minimum wage. In Korea, it could basically explain that regular bonus, calculated by multiplying the fixed rate on the basic wage, is merely paid at regular intervals by being accumulated to correspond to the fixed work schedule. Therefore, regular bonus is paid for contractual working and can not be accepted in the concept of a bonus in the strict sense. That means regular bonus of fixed type payment is a deferred payment wage paid later after accumulating rewards of contractual working for months. So regular bonus of that type is under the principle of regular payment on wages and such a payment system would be invalid because of violation of the Labor Standards Act. In accordance with a principle of the conversion of invalidity, it may be only accepted as a contract to pay regular bonus to the regular monthly payment schedule. This paper tries to scrutinize the possibility that the regular bonus could be included in the coverage of the minimum wage.

최저임금 산정범위의 조정 : 통상임금과의 관계를 중심으로

이승욱 梨花女子大學校 法學硏究所 2017 法學論集 Vol.21 No.4

In Korea, the coverage of minimum wage has been traditionally determined by the Minimum Wage Act and its decree which are set in accordance of the coverage of the regular rate of wage. The conclusion of the full bench decision of the Supreme Court of Korea, sentenced on 18. Dec. 2013, which has changed its doctrine about the concept of the regular rate of wage, results in the discrepancy between the coverage of minimum wage and that of regular rate of wage. Although the Supreme Court has considered the scope of minimum wage does not necessarily correspond to the scope of regular rate of wage on the basis that they do not have the same purpose and function, the labor inspection agencies and social partners have been in the same position that those wages be aligned with each other. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision en blanc will have important significance on the practices of minimum wage system as well as regular rate of wage system, and will raise various issues on the minimum wage system. In the normative perspective, the change of doctrine in Supreme Court and its following discrepancy between case law and practices in the field will undermine the purpose and efficiency of the minimum wage system which has been functioning as a basic floor for the wage structure. Furthermore, social partners' acceptance and predictability in the whole wage system will be seriously affected by the discrepancy. From a practical point of view, the wage gap between employees in large companies and low-wage employees could be expanded due to that discrepancy produced by the change of doctrine of the regular rate of wage. Whereas, under the new case law, the regular bonus now can be treated as the regular rate of wage, it is still excluded from the coverage of the minimum wage. As low-wage employees do not ordinarily have the wage system that includes regular bonus, it is not difficult to predict that this doctrine change will not have influence on the amount of their wages. However, employees in large companies will be paid by more over-time pay which is calculated based on the amount of the regular rate of wage, and will not be affected by the change of the doctrine. This difference will expand the wage gap between those employees.To solve these normative and practical problems, this paper considers whether the coverage of the regular rate of wage and the minimum wage should be reconciled and aligned with each other, and if so, this paper tries to scrutinize the possible alternatives of the coverage of minimum wage system. 종래 우리나라 최저임금의 적용을 위한 임금의 산입범위는 통상임금 범위와 상응하도록 최저임금법과 그 시행규칙에 의해 정하여 왔다. 그런데, 통상임금에 관한 최근의 대법원 전원합의체에서 종래 행정지침으로 제시하여 왔던 통상임금의 기준을 근본적으로 변경하는 취지의 판결을 내림에 따라 통상임금의 범위가 종래 행정지침상의 통상임금과 상당한 차이를 보이게 되었다. 이 판결은 단순히 통상임금의 범위에만 영향을 미치는 것이 아니라 통상임금을 산정기초로 하고 있는 고용보험법상의 각종 급여에도 영향을 미치고 있으며, 특히 최저임금의 산입범위와 관련하여도 중대한 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 그동안 대법원은 통상임금제도와 최저임금제도의 목적과 기능이 다르다는 이유로 양자의 범위가 반드시 일치되는 것은 아니라는 입장을 제시하여 왔으나, 행정실무나 산업 현장에서는 양자의 범위를 사실상 동일하게 운영하여 왔기 때문에 이 전원합의체 판결에 의해 양자 간의 괴리가 발생하고 이 괴리로 인해 다양한 규범적･현실적인 문제가 발생할 수 있다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해 이 논문에서는 통상임금의 범위와 최저임금의 비교대상임금의 범위를 일치시켜야 하는지 여부를 최저임금과 통상임금과의 관계에서 검토하고, 일치시킬 경우의 내용을 제안하고 있다.

성과상여금의 (평균)임금성

임상민 사법발전재단 2021 사법 Vol.1 No.55

After the Korean Supreme Court recently rendered decisions that collective performance bonus (payment for business performance) of public enterprise corresponds to average wages, debates over the issue of whether collective performance bonus (payment for business performance) of private companies can also be recognized as average wages have flourished. In reviewing the precedents dealing with the issue of whether a performance bonus paid by employer to employee has the nature of wages, some problems can be seen in these decisions. Namely, they did not distinguish between wages and average wages. The only requirements for performance bonus to satisfy to constitute as wages are that ① they should be provided as remuneration for work, and ② payment obligation should be based on labor contract, etc. Factors of continuity and regularity of payment or confirmation of the ground for payment, which the Court has placed emphasis on, are standards applied in determining whether certain wages are paid on a temporary basis. If wages are paid on a temporary basis, they are not included in average wages. The mainstream view held by the precedents recognizes the wages nature of personal performance bonus, which, in my view, is reasonable. The precedents which have admitted the average wages nature of collective performance bonus of public enterprise presuppose that collective performance bonus is paid as remuneration for work. Then, it is rational to find that collective performance bonus of private companies also corresponds to wages as remuneration for work. Even if the wage nature of collective performance bonus of private companies is admitted, the issue of whether such bonus corresponds to average wages should also be considered. We should review the relationship between ① continuity and regularity of payment and ② confirmation of the ground for payment, which are the standards for determining the nature of average wages. In case either one of the two standards is admitted, performance bonus cannot be considered to have been paid on a temporary basis and, therefore, collective performance bonus of private companies should be found to corresponds not only to wages but to average wages. 대법원이 최근 공기업 집단성과상여금(경영평가성과급)의 (평균)임금성을 인정하는 판결들을 선고한 이후, 사기업 집단성과상여금의 (평균)임금성에 대한 논의가 활발해졌다. 사용자가 근로자에게 지급하는 성과상여금의 임금성에 대한 선행판결들을 보면 문제점이 있다. 임금성과 평균임금성을 준별하지 않고 있다. 근로의 대가인지, 근로계약 등에 의한 지급의무가 인정되는지 여부만이 임금의 요건이다. 대법원이 중시하는 지급의 계속·정기성이나 지급사유의 사전확정성은 평균임금에서 제외되는 임시로 지급되는 임금을 판단하는 요소라 할 것이다. 개인성과상여금의 임금성을 인정하는 것이 주류적인 선행판례의 태도인 데 타당하다고 생각한다. 공기업 집단성과상여금의 평균임금성을 인정한 선행판례들은 집단성과상여금이 근로의 대가임을 전제로 한다. 타당하다고 생각한다. 그렇다면 사기업 집단성과상여금도 근로의 대가인 임금에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이다. 임금성을 인정하더라도 평균임금성이 있는지는 더 따져보아야 한다. 평균임금의 판단요소인 지급의 계속·정기성과 지급사유의 사전확정성이 어떤 관계에 있는지도 문제이다. 둘 중 어느 하나만 인정되더라도 임시로 지급되는 임금이라고 볼 수는 없으므로 평균임금에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이다.

통상임금의 고정성 기준에 관한 재검토

김홍영 한국노동법학회 2019 노동법학 Vol.0 No.71

The Supreme Court held that wages of the incumbent condition or the certain number of work-days condition are not included in the normal wages in 2013. But regular bonuses account for a large percentage of the regular salary, and if regular bonuses are excluded from normal wages, the fundamental purpose of the Labor Standards Act, which attempts to limit overtime work to additional wages, may be disrupted. In this article, we will try to resolve the argument about whether regular bonus are included in normal wages if there are incumbent conditions or certain number of work-days conditions. As directions for reviewing the judgment of fixedness, (1) Examining the validity of conditions, (2) Examining normal wages, and (3) Examining the establishment of conditions are presented. As a result of presenting and discussing various issues in each area, we conclude the following conclusions. (1) The incumbent condition and certain number of work-days condition added to regular bonuses are invalid. (2) Even if the regular bonus has such conditions, the regular bonus is recognized as normal wages. (3) If such conditions are not explicitly specified in the regular bonus, the existence of such conditions cannot be recognized. These arguments point out the fact that regular bonuses in Korea are wages in fixed form.