[Plaintiffs, Appellees] As listed in the attached list of plaintiffs. (Attorney Kim Gi-deok, Counsel for the Plaintiffs)
[Defendant, Appellant] GM Korea Company (Attorneys Kim Won-jeong and 2 others, Counsel for the Defendant)
[Remanding Judgment] Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10980 Decided November 27, 2015
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed in its entirety. The costs of the appeal are borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (to the extent that documents submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal supplement the grounds of appeal) are examined as follows.
1. Whether the payments constitute ordinary wages (Ground of Appeal No. 5)
The court below determined that the performance-based annual salary, the research allowance/organization management allowance, and the portion of the family allowance paid for the employee him/herself, which were paid by the Defendant, constitute ordinary wages paid as consideration for prescribed work, on the grounds, among others, that payment thereof was fixed so long as the employee provided the prescribed work.
The determination of the court below, being in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court's remanding judgment, is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles concerning ordinary wages as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. Whether there was a violation of the principle of good faith (Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 through 4)
A. Article 2(1) of the Civil Act (민법) provides, with respect to the principle of good faith and fair dealing (hereinafter referred to as the "principle of good faith"), that "the exercise of rights and the performance of duties shall be done in good faith." The principle of good faith is an abstract norm requiring that a party to a legal relationship, in consideration of the other party's interests, shall not exercise rights or perform duties in a manner or with content that is inequitable or contrary to good faith, and it functions as a general principle permeating the entire legal order. In order to deny the exercise of a right on the ground that it violates the principle of good faith, it must be the case that trust was provided to the other party, or that the other party was objectively in a situation of legitimately placing trust, and that the exercise of the right in violation of such trust of the other party has reached a degree that cannot be tolerated in light of the concept of justice (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da2390, 2406, Decided April 22, 2003; 2009Da68941, Decided February 10, 2011, etc.).
Where the contents of a labor-management agreement, such as a collective agreement, are null and void as being in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), if the assertion of such nullity is rejected on the ground that it constitutes an exercise of rights in violation of the principle of good faith, this would result in undermining the legislative purpose of the mandatory provisions; therefore, in principle, such an assertion cannot be deemed to violate the principle of good faith. However, only in exceptional cases where the general requirements for applying the principle of good faith are satisfied and there exist special circumstances warranting the priority application of the principle of good faith despite the mandatory nature of the Labor Standards Act, is the assertion of the nullity of such labor-management agreement impermissible as violating the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399, Decided December 18, 2013).
Where labor and management, through consultation, agree to exclude regular bonuses from the basis for calculating ordinary wages on the premise that regular bonuses do not constitute ordinary wages, and determine the wage level on that basis, it may violate the principle of good faith for an employee to add the regular bonus to ordinary wages and, on that basis, claim payment of additional statutory allowances, thereby imposing an excessive financial burden on the employer, causing serious managerial difficulties, or jeopardizing the survival of the enterprise (see the above Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399). However, with respect to wages for which there is no labor-management agreement to exclude them from ordinary wages, it cannot be deemed to violate the principle of good faith even if an employee adds such wages to ordinary wages and, on that basis, claims payment of additional statutory allowances.
B. The court below rejected the Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiffs' claim for additional statutory allowances and retirement pay, made by including the performance-based annual salary in ordinary wages, violates the principle of good faith, for the following reasons.
Although the performance-based annual salary originated from the existing regular bonus, considering the Defendant company's wage system, the structure for determining the amount to be paid, the method of payment, and other factors, it is difficult to regard it as identical to the regular bonus. The performance-based annual salary was introduced together with the implementation of the annual salary system for office workers, and the implementation of the annual salary system, including the performance-based annual salary, proceeded solely by obtaining the individual consent of office workers, without any labor-management consultation in this regard; furthermore, in light of the circumstances that, at the time, the office workers, including the Plaintiffs, were not even members of a labor union, it cannot be found that a labor-management agreement to exclude the performance-based annual salary from ordinary wages existed. Nor can it be found that there existed a labor-management practice or implied agreement to exclude the performance-based annual salary from ordinary wages.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles set forth above and the record, there is no error in the judgment below of misapprehending the legal principles concerning the principle of good faith as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, since the Defendant's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in its entirety, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This Judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the judgment.
[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted
Justice Lee Heung-gu (Presiding Justice), Kim Jae-hyung, Ahn Cheol-sang (Justice in Charge), Noh Jeong-hee