[Plaintiffs, Appellants] Plaintiff 1 and 4 others (Attorneys Kim Geon-woo and 1 other, Counsel for the plaintiffs)
[Defendant, Appellee] GM Korea Company (Attorneys Kim Won-jeong and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant)
[Remanding Judgment] Supreme Court Decision 2012Da116871 Decided May 29, 2014
[Order]
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (including the supplementary brief on the grounds of appeal submitted after the expiration of the period for submission of the grounds of appeal, to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal) are examined as follows.
The court below, in this case where the plaintiffs sought payment of additional statutory allowances based on adding the regular bonus to ordinary wages, cited the legal principles set forth in the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399 Decided December 18, 2013, concerning cases where a claim for additional statutory allowances is inadmissible as being contrary to the good faith principle (신의칙). The court below then found, as stated in its judgment, that: ① the regular bonus in this case amounts to 700% of the monthly ordinary wage on an annual basis, and considering the overtime work regularly performed by production workers, the additional statutory allowances that the defendant would be required to bear would significantly exceed the scope of statutory allowances that labor and management had used as a basis for negotiation at the time of the wage negotiations; ② the defendant's cumulative net income from 2008 to 2010 was approximately negative 600 billion won, and from 2008 to 2014 was approximately negative 800 billion won; ③ from 2008 to 2014, the defendant's debt ratio was considerably higher than that of comparable companies, its current ratio fell short of that of comparable companies, the scale of its borrowings exceeded 2 trillion won as of the end of 2014, and its annual ordinary research and development expenditures averaged approximately 600 billion won, such that if the cash held by the defendant as of the end of 2014 were used to pay the additional statutory allowances at issue in this case, there is a high likelihood that debt repayment or research and development would be suspended, or that the defendant would experience a serious liquidity crisis. Taking these circumstances comprehensively into account, the court below determined that the plaintiffs' claim for additional payment of unpaid statutory allowances by including the regular bonus in this case in the ordinary wage constitutes a pursuit of unexpected benefits far exceeding the wage level agreed upon by labor and management, and would impose upon the defendant an unforeseen new financial burden that could cause serious managerial difficulties or endanger the defendant's existence; therefore, the plaintiffs' above claim is inadmissible as being contrary to the good faith principle.
Upon examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, there is no error in the above determination of the court below, such as failing to conduct the necessary examination, violating the principles of logic and experience so as to exceed the limits of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or misapprehending the legal principles concerning the good faith principle in relation to a claim for additional statutory allowances based on adding the regular bonus to ordinary wages, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Roh Tae-ak (Presiding Justice), Justice Kim Jae-hyung, Justice Min Yu-sook (Justice in Charge), Justice Lee Dong-won