상여금(경영성과급)의 법적 성격에 관한 연구 - 일본과의 비교법적 고찰을 중심으로 -

이정 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2020 외법논집 Vol.44 No.2

There is much controversy over whether bonuses (PI, PS) amount to wages. In order for any money to be a wage, employers need to meet the requirement to be ‘object of work’. As for the legal nature of bonuses, there has been no unified interpretation of the legal nature of bonuses, as various interpretations have been made since the past, including “the nature of merit compensation,” “the nature of life preservation,” and “the nature of wage payment.” In the meantime, a dispute that started with regular wages has been expanding to the entire wage since the recent ruling that the bonuses of public corporations amounts to wages. Meanwhile, Japan, which is similar to Korea’s labor legislation and wage system, seems to have similar concerns. For example, Japan’s Labor Standards Act has definition of average wages, including wages, and the calculation standards are very similar. In addition, Japanese companies pay bonuses twice a year—in winter and summer, and it is true that there is a theory about whether to regard them as wages subject to labor. As such, despite various discussions in Japan on the legal nature of bonuses, disputes over them have rarely occurred in practice. Why is that for? The answer is surprisingly simple. The first is that unlike Korea, wages exceeding one month’s payment cycle are excluded from the calculation list in Japan. Second, when calculating average wages, wages that exceed three months’ pay cycle are excluded from the list, and for most Japanese companies, bonuses are paid in excess of that cycle, so that is not a problem. However, in Japan, bonuses are generally paid twice—in summer and winter, which are different from Korea, and in the case of management incentives, they are included in bonuses and paid separately. Therefore, there is a limit to simply comparing Japan’s wage system with Korea’s wage system. Nevertheless, I think the method of setting a certain payment cycle at the time of calculation to prevent confusion in practice over various wages suggests a lot to us. 상여금(경영성과급)이 임금에 해당하는지의 여부를 둘러싸고 논란이 많다. 어떤 금품이 임금에 해당하기 위해서는 사용자가 ‘근로의 대상’이라는 요건을 충족할 필요가 있다. 상여금의 법적 성격에 대해서는 종전부터 ‘공로 보상적 성격’을 비롯하여 ‘생활 보전적 성격’ 및 ‘임금 후불적 성격’ 등 다양한해석이 이루어져온 만큼, 통일된 해석이 없었다. 그러던 중 최근에는 공기업의 경영성과급을 임금에 해당한다는 판결이 나오면서 통상임금에서 시작된 분쟁이 임금 전체로 전선을 확대하고 있는 형국이다. 한편 우리나라의 노동법제 및 임금체계와 비슷한 일본에서도 우리와 비슷한 고민을 하고 있는 듯하다, 예를 들어 일본의 노동기준법은 임금을 비롯하여 평균임금에 대한 정의규정을 두고 있으며, 산정기준도 매우 흡사하다. 또한 일본기업은 동계와 하계 연2회 상여금(경영성과급 포함)을 지급하고 있는데, 이를 노동의 대상인 임금으로 볼 것인가에 대해서는 이론(異論)이 있는 것도 사실이다. 이와 같이 일본에서도 상여금의 법적 성격에 대해서는 다양한 논의가 있음에도 불구하고, 이를 둘러싼 분쟁은 실무상 거의 발생하지 않고 있다. 그 이유는 무엇일까? 해답은 의외로 간단하다. 첫째는 일본에서는 우리나라와는 달리 통상임금 및 최저임금 산정 시에 1개월의 지급주기를 초과하는 임금에 대해서는 산정대상에서 제외하고 있다는 점이다. 둘째는 평균임금을 산정할 때 지급주기가 3개월을 초과하는 임금은 그 대상에서 제외하고 있으며, 대부분의 일본기업의 경우 이 주기를 초과하여 상여금을 지급하고 있기 때문에 그다지 문제가 되지 않는다. 다만, 일본에서는 상여금을 우리나라와는 달리 하계 및 동계로 2회에 나누어 지급하는 경우가 일반적이며, 경영성과급의 경우에도 상여금에 포함시켜 지급하는 경우와 이와는 별도로 지급하는 경우 등매우 다양하다. 따라서 일본의 임금제도를 우리나라의 임금제도와 단순비교하기에는 한계가 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 각종 임금을 둘러싼 실무상의 혼선을 방지하기 위해 산정 시에 일정한 지급주기를설정하는 방식은 우리에게 많은 것을 시사해주고 있다고 생각한다.

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.

지역 간 임금격차에 대한 고찰: 수도권․비수도권을 중심으로

이종수 한국노동연구원 2017 노동정책연구 Vol.17 No.2

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the cause of regional wage disparity in Korea by examining Metropolitan versus Non-Metropolitan areas. Wages were estimated using data from the 2015 Korea Labor and Income Panel Study. The Oaxaca Decomposition Method was used to determine the wage decomposition and the Mincer type wage equation was used to estimate the wage function. The wage estimation points out that education, health conditions, types of permanent employment, and the existence of a labor union has a positive Influence on wages in Metropolitan areas. Meanwhile, job tenure and types of temporary employment contributes to wage increases in the Non-Metropolitan Areas. In regards to industry sectors, employees who are engaged in industries such as finance, insurance, and construction earn higher wages in the Non-Metropolitan areas compared to Metropolitan areas. However, employees who are engaged in ‘Public office work’ tend to get lower wages in the Non-Metropolitan areas. In regards to occupation sectors, employees who are engaged in professional and managerial positions earns higher wages in the Metropolitan areas compared to Non-Metropolitan areas. Also, employees who are engaged in occupations such as simple labor, equipment, machine operations, and assembly tend to get lower wages in the Non-Metropolitan areas compared to Metropolitan areas. In addition, it is more significant in the Non-Metropolitan area where the number of private institutions and the ratio of road pavement have an impact on Increase in wages. However, the increasing number of social welfare facilities results in decrease in wages. Wages were broken down by regions through the Oaxaca Decomposition Method in order to analyze the key factors of wage differentials. The proportion of unexplanatory part (47.45%) is higher than the explanatory part (52.55%). This indicates that the unexplained part has a higher explanatory power to decide the differential of wages in Metropolitan and the Non- Metropolitan areas. The findings of the explanation parts show that the factors causing the wage disparity are in the order of the local amenities (0.021), The job type variables (0.020), and the industry characteristics (0.013). The findings of (from) the unexplained parts show that the factors causing the compensation differences are in the order of the individual characteristics (0.289), years of educations (0.288), and the job type variables (0.058). This paper concludes that by concerning the factors of regional wage disparities the difference in human resources upon the population concentration phenomenon in the Metropolitan area is equivalent to the wage discrimination. 지역 간 임금격차의 발생요인을 알아보기 위해 수도권과 비수도권을 나누어 살펴보았다. 임금추정 결과, 수도권에서는 교육연수, 건강상태, 정규직 여부, 노조의 유무가 임금에 긍정적인 영향을 주었다. 반면 비수도권 내에서는 근속연수와 상용직 여부가 임금상승에 기여하였다. 산업별로 나누어 살펴보면, 금융업 및 보험업, 건설업 등에서는 비수도권이 수도권보다 임금이 높았다. 하지만 공직의 경우에는 반대의 현상이 나타났다. 직업별로 보면, 전문가, 관리직의 경우 수도권이 비수도권보다 임금이 높고, 단순노무직, 장치, 기계 조작, 조립분야 등의 경우 역시 마찬가지인 점을 확인하였다. 사설 학원 수와 도로 포장률에 따라서 임금이 상승하는 효과를 보인 반면, 사회복지시설이 존재할수록 임금이 하락하였고 이는 비수도권에서 두드러졌다. 이후 Oaxaca 임금분해식을 통해 지역별로 임금을 분해하여 임금격차 요인을 분석하였고 비설명부분이 52.55%로 설명부분인 47.45%보다 높은 비중을 차지하는 것으로 나타났다. 즉, 수도권과 비수도권을 설명하는 데에 비설명부분의 설명력이 높다는 것이다. 임금격차의 발생 요인을 보면, 설명부분은 지역 내 편의시설(0.021), 직종변수(0.020), 산업별 특성(0.013) 순이다. 비설명부분에서 보상의 차이를 발생시키는 요인은 개별적 특성(0.289), 교육연수(0.288), 직종변수(0.058) 순이다. 따라서 이와 같은 지역별 임금격차 요인으로 볼 때 수도권 인구 집중화 현상에 따른 인적자원 차이는 차별이라고 볼 수 있다.

복지포인트의 임금성 - 대법원 2019. 8. 22. 선고 2016다48785 판결(전합) 중심으로

박종희 노동법이론실무학회 2019 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.18

The Supreme Court recently determined that welfare-point was not wage (Supreme Courten banc Decision). As a result of the judgment, welfare-point is not, of course, included in ordinary wage. The majority opinion took the position of that welfare-point is derived from flexible employee benefit system, moreover, it is not wage because it is based on The FRAMEWORK ACT ON LABOR WELFARE. Among the financial advantage paid by employers to employees, it gave them room for employee benefit, not wages, to be officially established. However, it is not appropriate to actively consider employee benefit based on U.S. notions that have evolved around Company Welfare, even from legal judgment. The name welfare cannot be regarded as a criterion or an obstacle in determining wage. Rather, wage should be judged from a legal point of view. Although the company paid financial advantage to the worker in the name employee benefits, however, if it continues to be paid and has a payment obligation and the employee can dispose of the financial advantages paid, it should be regarded as a wage. The majority opinion is that the allocation of welfare-point cannot be regarded as a payment of wages. The majority opinion did not accept a flexible interpretation of the new method of payment. However, if an employee is granted the right to dispose of the financial advantages and, in effect, the employee is entitled to the disposal of the property interest, a flexible interpretation of all these means of payment of wages is also necessary. Therefore, allocating welfare-point to workers constitutes a payment of wages in itself. In addition, if the allocation of welfare-point means that wage payment exists, the assigned welfare-point should also be regarded as equivalent to ordinary wages. This is because the actual use or result of use does not affect the fixedness of determining ordinary wages because it is already a consideration for the work. There are concerns that the Supreme Court's ruling could create an opportunity to narrow down the scope of future wages. In addition, the employer actively utilizes employee benefit ,which is not recognized in terms of wages, as a negotiating strategy for workers, I am very worried because worker interests can be violated. 대법원은 전원합의체 판결로 기업이 근로자에게 지급하는 복지포인트는 임금이 아닌 것으로 판단하였다. 그 결과 복지포인트는 통상임금에도 당연히 해당하지 않게 되었다. 대법원은 60년도 더 지난 제정 근로기준법 당시부터 존재하던 규정의 의미에 따라 충실하게 해석하였다. 대법원 다수의견은 복지포인트가 복리후생적 급여, 그 중에서도 선택적 복리후생제도에서 연유되었다는 점, 그리고 그것은 근로복지기본법에 기초하고 있는 제도라는 점에서 임금이 아닌 것으로 보았다. 이로써 사용자가 근로자에게 지급하는 금품 중에는 임금이 아닌 복리후생 급여가 공식적으로 영역을 차지할 수 있는 여지를 만들어 준 셈이다. 또한 이는 근로제공에 직접적이고 밀접한 관련성이 인정되는 경우에만 임금성을 인정하는 종전 입장으로 회귀한 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 그러나 기업 복지 중심으로 발전해 온 미국의 관념에 기초한 복리후생을 법적 판단에서까지 적극 고려하는 것은 적절치 않다. 복지라는 명칭은 임금을 판단하는 데에 기준으로 된다거나 장애가 되는 것으로는 볼 수 없다. 오히려 임금은 근로의 대가로 지급된 일체의 금품이란 법적인 의미에서 판단되어야 한다. 그리고 비록 근로복지기본법상 선택적 복리후생제도의 일환으로 도입되었다는 이유 때문에 법적인 관점에서 임금이 아닌 것으로 보아야 한다는 점도 수용할 수 없다. 따라서 기업이 복리후생이란 명목으로 근로자에게 지급하더라도 그것이 계속적・정기적으로 지급되고 지급의무가 근거지워져 있으며 지급된 금품의 처분가능성이 근로자에게 귀속된다면 이는 임금으로 보는 것이 타당하다. 다수의견은 복지포인트 배정을 임금의 지급으로 볼 수 없다는 입장이다. 이러한 다수의견은 새로운 지급수단을 포섭할 수 있는 유연한 해석론을 받아 들이지 않은 것이다. 그러나 근로자에게 재산적 이익의 처분권이 부여되고 확정적으로 귀속된다면 이러한 모든 지급수단에 대해서도 임금 지급으로 보는 유연한 해석이 필요하다. 그리하여 복지포인트의 배정은 그 자체로서 임금 지급에 해당하는 것으로 봄이 타당하다. 또한 다수의견이 복지포인트의 사용 용도 제한, 1년 내 미사용시 소멸, 양도 불가능성 등을 복지포인트의 임금성을 부인하는 논거로 제시하였으나 이 또한 타당하지 않음을 검토하였다. 복지포인트 배정만으로 임금지급이 있은 것으로 본다면, 배정된 포인트는 통상임금에도 해당하는 것으로 보아야 한다. 이미 근로의 대가로 배정된 포인트이므로 실제 사용 여부나 사용결과가 통상임금을 판단하는 고정성에 영향을 미치는 것은 아니기 때문이다. 다만 일률성이 부인될 수 있는 가족에 따른 추가포인트의 경우는 통상임금에서 제외될 것이다. 이번 대법원의 판결은 향후 임금의 범위를 좁게 파악하는 계기를 만들게 될 수 있다는 우려와 함께, 사용자로 하여금 임금성이 부인되는 복리후생을 교섭전략으로 적극 활용하도록 함으로써 근로자의 이익이 침해될 수 있는 여지를 만들어 주었다는 점에 심히 염려스러움이 있다.

최근 임금 쟁점의 최저임금 영향에 관한 소고 - 주휴수당, 실비변상적 금품, 통상임금을 중심으로 -

이재현 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2025 강원법학 Vol.78 No.-

「근로기준법」은 임금을 핵심 근로조건으로 보고 보호를 위한 다수의 규정을 두고 있다. 이와 관련하여 종래 근로기준법에 포함되어 있다가, 1986년 「최저임금법」 제정으로 분화된 최저임금과 근로기준법상 임금 관련 주요 쟁점의 관계가 문제가 된다. 사업장에서는 여전히 최저임금을 사용자가 준수해야 하는 임금에 관한 기준으로 여기고, 기능과 역할 측면에서 통상임금과의 차이점이 크게 드러나지 못하는 상황으로 파악된다. 아직까지 최저임금제도가 지향하는 목적이 분명하게 정립되지 못한 점, 통상임금 요건에 관한 지속적인 법적 분쟁의 발생, 임금 체계 개편 노력에도 불구하고 가시적인 성과가 나타나지 않은 점 등이 주된 원인으로 보인다. 임금과 관련하여 최근 많은 논란이 발생하고 있는 쟁점으로 주휴수당의 유지 여부, 실비변상적 성질 급여의 통상임금 또는 최저임금 산입, 통상임금 요건 중 고정성 폐지가 있다. 본 논문은 임금 관련 주요 쟁점을 순차적으로 살펴보고, 최저임금제도와의 관련성을 고려한 입법정책적 개선방안을 제안하였다. 첫째, 주휴수당을 폐지하고 최저임금 수준을 통하여 근로자의 임금수준을 정하는 것이 간결하고 합리적이라고 판단된다. 둘째, 근로기준법령에서 소득세법상 실비변상적 성격의 급여 중 일부를 특정하여 임금으로 보지 않도록 간주하는 법 개정을 생각해 볼 수 있다. 한편, 실비변상적 성격의 금품 중 생활보조 성격이 강한 항목의 경우, 최저임금 산입이 필요하다. 셋째, 통상임금 대법원 전원합의체 판결과 관련하여 최저임금제도의 목적과 취지, 개념 요소 등의 재정립 논의가 필요하다. The Labor Standards Act considers wages to be an essential condition of employment and has a number of provisions for protection of wages. The minimum wage was initially stipulated in the Labor Standards Act but was separated as a stand-alone provision with the enactment of the Minimum Wage Act in 1986. As a result, the relationship between the minimum wage and wages under the Labor Standards Act has become an issue of debate. Many workplaces still regard the minimum wage as one of the standards for wages that employers must follow, and its distinction from ordinary wages in terms of function and role remains insufficiently explained. The reasons for this issue seem to stem from several factors: the lack of a clearly established purpose for the minimum wage system, continuous legal disputes over the requirements for ordinary wages, and the lack of significant progress despite efforts to reform the wage system. Recent key issues related to wages include the continuation of weekly holiday pay, the inclusion of reimbursement-based pay for actual expenses in ordinary wages or the minimum wages, and the abolition of the "fixed nature" requirement for ordinary wages. This paper examines the key wage-related issues and suggests policy improvements considering their relevance with the minimum wage system. First, abolishing the weekly holiday pay requirement and setting workers’ wage levels based solely on the minimum wage would be a simpler and more rational approach. Secondly, amending the relevant law to exclude certain reimbursement-based pay for actual expenses recognized under the Income Tax Act from wages under the Labor Standards Act could be considered. Meanwhile, it is necessary to include reimbursements for actual expenses that serve as living allowances in the minimum wage calculation. Third, the recent Supreme Court's ruling is occurred. In this regard, a discussion on redefining the purpose and conceptual elements of the minimum wage system is needed.

팀 내 임금격차와 임금위치가 성과에 미치는 영향: 한국프로야구 팀을 중심으로

양동훈,고은정,장용준 한국노동연구원 2019 노동정책연구 Vol.19 No.1

Wage has been studied for a long time as variables that has a major effect on individual and organizational performance, but many of the existing studies have not provided consistent results between wage difference and performance. This problem is due to the fact that the accuracy of the measurement of the performance and the various variables that affect the performance are not considered properly. This study utilized Korean professional baseball data which can be measured and measured relatively accurately. The purpose of this study was to examine the absolute wage level, the wage difference that enables relative comparisons, and the effect of wage position on performance. In this study, we collected 2,297 data for 10 teams and 683 athletes from Korean professional baseball team from 2007 to 2016 for panel regression analysis. The results of the analysis are as follows. First, there is a significant positive relationship between absolute wage level and performance. Second, there was a significant negative relationship between wage difference and performance. Finally, it was found that the wage position of the job are moderated to the negative wage level and performance. The results of this study show that although the wage level of professional baseball reflects the performance, the wage difference in the organization may have a negative impact on performance. The players with low wage position in the job pay attention to the wage level, which is the position of external wage. And the wage position was moderated the relationship between wage level and performance as a negativity. 임금은 개인 및 조직성과에 주요한 영향을 미치는 변수로 오랫동안 연구되어왔으나, 기존 연구 중 상당수가 임금격차와 성과 간에 일관된 결과를 보이고 있지 않다. 이러한 문제는 기존의 연구들이 성과 측정의 정확성과 성과에 영향을 미치는 다양한 변수들을 제대로 통제하지 못했기 때문이다. 본 연구는 성과 측정이 비교적 계량화되어 있고, 정확성이 높은 한국프로야구 데이터를 활용하였다. 본 연구의 목적은 프로야구 성과자료를 활용해 절대적인 임금수준과 상대적 비교가 가능한 임금격차, 그리고 임금위치가 성과에 미치는 영향을 살펴보는 것이다. 2007년부터 2016년까지 10년간 한국프로야구 소속 10개 팀, 683명의 선수들을 대상으로 2,297개의 데이터를 수집하여 패널분석을 실시한 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 절대적인 임금수준과 성과 간에는 유의한 정(+)의 관계가 나타났다. 둘째, 직무 간 임금격차와 성과 간에는 유의한 부(-)의 관계가 있었다. 마지막으로 직무 내 임금위치는 임금수준과 성과를 부(-)의 방향으로 조절하였다. 본 연구결과에 의하면 프로야구 연봉수준은 성과를 반영하고 있지만, 조직 내 임금격차가 증가하면 성과에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 보여주고 있다. 또한 직무 내 임금위치가 낮은 선수들은 대안적으로 외부 임금수준에 민감하게 반응함으로써 임금수준과 성과 간의 관계를 부(-)적으로 조절하는 것으로 나타났다.

임금의 규범적 개념과 정당성 연구 - 정당한 임금은 무엇인가? -

장운혁 동국대학교 동서사상연구소 2022 철학·사상·문화 Vol.- No.40

What is a wage and how is a wage justified? This paper analyzes the moral concepts that justify wages based on the above two questions and attempts a productive development on the fairness of wage setting through the normative elements and justification logic of each concept. In the meantime, wages have been regarded only as a strategic management element of a company, causing many social conflicts. I think that the examination of the moral justification of wages is the starting point to solve this problem. In other words, wages should be approached from a moral point of view, not just from an efficiency point of view, and this should begin by revealing what moral elements are in the concept of wages. Therefore, this paper seeks to find the normative elements of wage justification in the concept of wage itself. First, I clarify the three concepts of wage justification, and show that each concept results in normative logic. These three concepts are ‘reward’ for valuable work performance, ‘incentive’ to motivate employees and encourage hard work, and ‘price’ to be paid for the purchase of information and labor needed for production. I then argue each normative logic is justified, but can be easily refuted. Lastly, I argue that wages should be basically determined by the normative logic of the concept of price because the concept of price has social efficiency, productivity, and compatibility with the market economy that the concept of reward and incentive do not have. Nevertheless, the wage imbalance that occurs will have to be corrected and supplemented through comparison with other concepts.

일본의 임금체계에 관한 연구

안희탁(hee tak, Ahn) 실천경영학회 2012 실천경영연구 Vol.7 No.1

This study focuses on the differences between wage structures of Korea and Japan in terms of wage range and criteria for wage calculation according to the Labor Standards Act. In Korea, wages are classified into average wages and ordinary wages according to the Labor Standards Act. Average wages are wages that serve as criteria for calculating legal allowances such as severance pay and accident compensations; ordinary wages are standard wages for computing overtime payments. However, this method of wage classification is ambiguous so it causes confusion in calculating allowances, bonuses, severance pay, and so forth. It also leads to distorted wage structure of enterprises. The range of ordinary wages has recently emerged as a hot issue between labor and management as the Supreme Court ruled that regular bonus also pertains to ordinary wages. As for Japan, wage range and criteria for wage calculation are clearly stipulated in the relevant act in an effort to minimze any potential disputes between labor and management. This is the basic difference between wage structures of the two countries. Therefore, Korea needs to clearly stipulate the wage range and criteria for wage calculation in its Labor Standards Act. In other words, it is necessary to establish legal criteria for clarifying which wages are standard wages for calculating ordinary wages and average wages. Korea’s wage structure is complicate due largely to the dichotomized wage range (ordinary wage and average wage) and less clear cut criteria for wage calculation. The rational wage structure and clear Labor Act should be established to stabilize the labor- management relations and strengthen the enterprises’ competitiveness in Korea.

부당해고 피해자의 임금채권 보장 -임금 상당액의 해석 및 근로자의 권리구제 지연 문제

김종현 ( Jonghyun Kim ) 서울대학교 공익인권법센터 2015 공익과 인권 Vol.15 No.-

Wage Claim Guarantee System is a system by which the state pays unpaid wages, etc. within a certain range, in place of the business proprietor. The recipient is a worker who retired without receiving their wages, etc. due to the bankruptcy of companies, and asked for the payment of his/her wages payable within a certain period. In such a case, the state exercises the right of the worker in subrogation to claim unpaid wages, etc. against the employer within the amount paid by the state. Meanwhile, an unfair dismissal is invalid in the private law, and precedents stand on the position that a worker may ask for a benefit in return, the payment of wages he or she would have been paid if he or she had offered work during the period of unfair dismissal. Thus, the wrongfully dismissed employee may ask for the confirmation of the invalidity of the dismissal and appeal to recieve his or her unpaid wages. In addition to this means of remedy through the Court, the Labor Standards Act provides a remedy from the Labor Relations Commission (Article 28, Clause 1 of the Labor Standards Act). If the Labor Relations Commission judges that the dismissal is unfair, it shall issue an order of remedy to the employer (Article 30, Clause 1 of the same Act). At this time, if the worker does not desire to be reinstated to his or her former office, instead of issuing an order to reinstate, the commission may order the employer to pay such worker the amount of money or other valuables equivalent to or higher than the amount of wages he or she would have been paid if he or she had offered work during the period of dismissal (The same Article, Clause 3). The problem is that the precedents stand on the position that a worker who was wrongfully dismissed may ask for the payment of ‘wages’. On the other hand, the Labor Relations Commission orders to pay ‘equivalent amount to wages’ (or Money and valuables more than the equivalent amount to wages if he or she does not want the reinstatement) with an order to reinstate him/her in his/her former office as an order for remedy. The Ministry of Employment and Labor and the Administrative Appeals Commission have conflicting positions concerning the legal nature of the ‘equivalent amount to wages’ and whether to acknowledge the unfairly dismissed worker as the due recipient of subrogated payment. Moreover, the gap between these different opinions delays the remedy for the worker who retired without receiving this and applied for the subrogated payment, since his or her former employer didn’t pay the equivalent amount to wages even after the order. This practice does not meet the purpose of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act to contribute to a worker’s stable life by preparing a measure to guarantee the payment to the worker who retired without receiving the payment of wages etc. Thus, this research attempted to analyze the precedents, the administrative interpretation of the Ministry of Employment and Labor and the decision of the Administrative Appeals Commission regarding the legal nature of the equivalent amount to wages and whether the subrogated payment should be given or not. In addition, the legal nature of the money and valuables a wrongfully dismissed worker would have been paid, the legal nature of the equivalent amount to wages and whether it could be covered by the subrogated payment, the legal nature of money and valuables (monetary compensation) more than the equivalent amount to wages and whether it could be covered by the subrogated payment were examined in order. As a result, first, a worker who was wrongfully dismissed could receive the ‘wages’ he/she would have been paid if he or she had offered work during the period of dismissal, which should be covered by the subrogated payment; Second, the equivalent amount to wages has a nature of wages and should be the subject of the subrogated payment; and third, there is a conflict in opinions on the legal nature of money and valuables more than the equivalent amount to wages, but this conflict is not crucial in determining on the subrogated payment. Today, the heads of local Employment and Labor Offices keep notifying that they could not confirm the grounds for payment or that they would not pay because the applicant is not a recipient, concerning an application for the payment of subrogated payment for the equivalent amount to wages. In light of the above reviewed legal nature of the equivalent amount to wages, the disposition is either illegal or unjust. In addition, The Administrative Appeals Commission has affirmed the claim for the cancellation of the above disposition, but the precedents it sited have not judged the legal nature of the equivalent amount to wages. Even though its conclusion is appropriate, it can still be criticized as an argument without grounds. The Wage Claim Guarantee System aims at contributing to the stabilization of the life of workers who retired without receiving their wages, etc., so the state should overcome different opinions between institutions concerning the legal nature of the equivalent amount to wages, as soon as possible and engage in the remedy without delay.

경영성과급의 임금성에 관한 소고* ―하급심 판결 사례를 중심으로―

양주열 노동법이론실무학회 2023 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.38

'Wages' refers to the money and valuables that workers receive in return for providing work after signing a labor contract. However, from a company's point of view, wages are one of the 'expenses' that companies spend on a fixed basis in the business they run, and the rest excluding this is the 'performance' achieved through business activities and can be evaluated as a company's profit. If so, it is questionable whether the 'performance' as a result of these business and management activities achieved by the company can be called 'wage' if the company itself shares or distributes it to the workers. Recently, the Supreme Court issued a ruling recognizing performance-based incentives for management evaluation of public institutions as wages, and as a result, disputes have arisen claiming additional severance pay, arguing that the management incentives for business activities paid by general private companies are also wages. This kind of Court Decisions on the wages of performance-related incentives immediately affect other items that companies have already spent as 'wages', such as retirement benefits and shutdown allowance, furthermore, it has a great impact on corporate business activities in that it is subject to various regulations under the Labor Standards Act, such as regulations on payment methods and regulations on delayed payment of wages. Management incentives are paid in various forms and methods due to various factors such as the business conditions of each company, changes in the wage system and system, market environment, labor-management relations, and changes in transaction and payment methods, Recently. If so, questions such as "Can the performance-based bonus paid through these different methods really be considered wages?" and "If it is wages, then there are no other problems." are able to only happened. As such, it is most important to understand what the essential content of porformancebased pay is when in determining preformance-based pay is wage or not. in determining the nature of performance-based pay, it is most important to understand what the essential content of performance-based pay is. Wages are a specific component of the criminal punishment provisions under various Labor Standards Acts. Therefore, what is included in the scope of wages among the money and goods paid by employers to workers must be clearly determined based on strict and specific grounds, and the interpretation must be made in a way that gives sufficient foreseeability to the perpetrators. In this respect, it seems reasonable to judge that the performance-based pay is wage or not based on the criteria of 'remuneration for labor' and 'close relationship with the provision of labor'. Although the Labor Standards Act is a law created to ensure and improve the basic living standards of workers by setting standards for working conditions in accordance with the Constitution in relation to the specific rights and obligations of employers and workers in labor relations, it cannot be denied that the basic basis of labor contracts is civil law and employment contract. Therefore, even in determining the specific concept and scope of wages, the basic principles of civil law cannot be violated. Ultimately, in determining whether performance-based bonuses are wage-worthy, it is not possible to recognize 'remuneration for labor' simply by citing the fact that they were paid continuously and repeatedly or that formally there are regulations related to them. Rather, it is necessary to determine whether wages are paid based on the core elements of 'remuneration for labor' such as ‘Whether the employer has substantial authority and discretion in determining the payment of actual business incentives’ or ‘What is the purpose or motive for paying performance-related bonuses’, or ‘What are the factors that can determine the specific amount or level of business incentives’ so on. Expanding the scope of interpretation of wages can on... 경영성과급에 대한 임금성 여부가 기업에게 있어 중요한 이슈가되는 이유는, 그것이 평균임금이나 통상임금 산정에 필요한 기준임금을 책정하는 것과 관련하여 기업에 예상치 못한 경제적 손실을 입힐수 있다는 점과 함께, 경영성과급이 임금으로 인정됨에 따라 임금 체불에 따른 형사책임의 부담 및 그에 따른 근로자들의 임금청구권 발생에 대한 쟁점, 근로기준법상 임금지급에 따른 법적 규제 가운데 임금의 통화지급 원칙에 대한 위반 문제 등 복잡한 법적 이슈가 함께발생하기 때문이다. 특히 임금은 여러 근로기준법상의 형사처벌 규정의 구체적인 구성요건 요소에 해당하므로, 사용자가 근로자에게 지급하는 금품 가운데 무엇이 임금의 범위에 포함되는가 하는 점은 엄격하고 구체적인 근거에 따라 명확하게 판단되어야 하며, 수범자에 대해 충분한 예견가능성을 부여하는 방향으로 그 해석이 이루어져야 한다. 그러한 측면에서 경영성과급의 임금성을 판단함에 있어 '근로대가성' 및 '근로제공과의 밀접한 관련성'을 기준으로 판단하는 것은 일견타당하다. 근로기준법이 비록 근로관계에서 사용자와 근로자의 구체적인 권리·의무 관계에 있어 헌법에 따라 근로조건의 기준을 정하여근로자의 기본적 생활을 보장 및 향상 시키기 위해 만들어진 법령이긴 하나, 근로계약의 기본 바탕이 민법상의 고용계약을 기반으로 하고 있음은 부정할 수 없으며, 따라서 구체적인 임금의 개념과 범위를정함에 있어서도 기본적인 민법상의 법리를 거스를 수는 없다. 결국,임금 또한 근로계약이라는 쌍무계약에서 당사자 일방이 상대방의 급부에 대한 반대급부로서 지급해야 하는 것이므로 쌍무계약의 견련성이 인정되어야 비로소 그 범위에 포함된다 할 수 있으며, 그러한 견련성을 보여주는 가장 핵심적인 징표가 바로 '근로대가성' 혹은 '근로제공과의 밀접한 관련성'이라고 할 수 있을 것이다. 그리고 이러한 임금의 범위를 특정하는 기준은 명확한 기준과 근거를 바탕에 두고 그내용을 구체적으로 알 수 있어야 하며, 특히 경영성과급의 임금성 여부를 판단함에 있어서도 단순히 계속적, 반복적으로 지급되었다거나형식적으로 그와 관련된 규정이 존재한다는 등의 사정만을 들어 근로대가성을 인정할 것이 아니라, 실제 경영성과급의 지급 결정에 있어실질적인 권한 및 재량이 사용자에게 존재하는지, 경영성과급을 지급하게 된 목적이나 동기가 무엇인지, 경영성과급의 구체적인 지급 액수나 수준을 결정할 수 있는 요소가 무엇인지 등 근로대가성에 대한핵심적인 사실관계를 바탕으로 그 임금성 여부를 판단할 필요가 있다. 임금은 근로자의 근로 제공 자체를 이유로 지급되는 금품이다. 그리고 이러한 임금의 범위는 노동력 제공 행위에 밀접하게 연계된 금품에 대해서까지 확대되어 해석될 수 있고, 지금까지의 대법원 판결또한 이러한 기본적인 태도 안에서 사용자가 지급하는 금품에 대한임금성 여부를 판단해 왔다. 그리고 이러한 원칙은 별도의 사회적 합의에 따른 입법이 존재하지 않는 이상 단순히 해석을 통해 함부로 변경될 수 있는 것이 아니며, 만약 이러한 기준이 흔들리게 된다면 오히려 노사관계에 있어 부적절한 영향을 미칠 가능성이 증가할 것이다. 임금의 해석 범위를 확대하는 것 또한 '근로자의 기본적 생활 보장 및 향상'을 위해 합리적인 범위 내에서 허용될 수 있는 것일 뿐이고, 그러...