[Parties]
[Plaintiffs, Appellees] As listed in the attached list of plaintiffs. (Litigation representative: Simin Law Firm, Attorney Kim Nam-jun and 2 others)
[Defendant, Appellant] National Health Insurance Service (Litigation representative: Government Legal Service, Attorney Shim Hye-jin)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2083847 decided April 19, 2017
[Order]
The part of the judgment below against which the Defendant lost is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the First Ground of Appeal
A. Ordinary wages, which the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) provides as the basis for calculating premium wages for overtime, night, and holiday work, dismissal notice allowance, annual leave allowance, etc., and as the minimum limit of average wages, refer to wages that are regularly, uniformly, and fixedly paid as money or valuables agreed to be paid as consideration for the prescribed work that an employee ordinarily provides during prescribed working hours.
Here, "consideration for prescribed work" refers to money or valuables that the employer and employee have agreed to pay for work that the employee is scheduled to ordinarily provide during prescribed working hours. Wages additionally paid by the employer because the employee provided work exceeding the prescribed working hours or specially provided work other than that agreed to be provided under the employment contract, or wages paid without relation to work during prescribed working hours, cannot be regarded as consideration for prescribed work and therefore do not fall under ordinary wages.
In order for a certain wage to constitute an ordinary wage, it must have the character of being paid uniformly. "Uniform" payment includes not only payment to "all employees" but also payment to "all employees who meet a certain condition or standard."
Furthermore, in order for a certain wage to constitute an ordinary wage, it must be paid on a fixed basis. This refers to "the nature of being determined to be paid as a matter of course for the work provided by an employee, regardless of the employee's performance, achievements, or other additional conditions," and "fixed wages" means, regardless of the name of the wage, the minimum wage that an employee who has worked the prescribed working hours on a given day would receive as a matter of course and definitely as consideration for that day's work, even if the employee were to retire the following day. Therefore, if a wage is scheduled to be paid as a matter of course when an employee provides prescribed work on a given day, regardless of whether any additional conditions are satisfied, and if the payment or the amount thereof is predetermined, such wage may be regarded as having fixedness (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399 decided December 18, 2013).
B. The court below, citing the circumstances stated in its judgment, determined that the bonus provided for in Article 23 of the Defendant's Remuneration Regulations, being paid to employees regularly, uniformly, and fixedly, constitutes ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act.
C. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles set forth above, there is no error in the above determination of the court below regarding the legal principles on ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act.
2. As to the Second Ground of Appeal
A. In order for money or valuables paid by an employer to an employee to constitute wages, they must first be paid as consideration for work; therefore, even if such money or valuables are paid continuously and regularly, if they cannot be regarded as paid as consideration for work, they cannot be deemed wages. In determining whether certain money or valuables were paid as consideration for work, it must be possible to view the obligation to pay such money or valuables as directly related to, or closely related to, the provision of work (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da55934 decided May 12, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 2011Da23149 decided July 14, 2011, etc.).
Where an employer operates a selective welfare system under which employees may autonomously choose welfare benefits according to their own preferences and needs from among various welfare items, and, based on a collective agreement, rules of employment, etc., continuously and regularly allocates to employees welfare points that can be used, for example, to purchase goods on an online shopping site exclusively for employees, such welfare points do not constitute wages as referred to in the Labor Standards Act, and consequently do not constitute ordinary wages either (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da48785 decided August 22, 2019).
B. The court below, citing the reasons stated in its judgment, determined that the basic welfare points that the Defendant had uniformly allocated each year to employees of Grade 3 and below pursuant to the Guidelines for Operation of the Customized Welfare System constitute ordinary wages.
However, in light of the legal principles set forth above, such basic welfare points do not constitute wages, and consequently do not constitute ordinary wages either.
Accordingly, the judgment below contains an error that misapprehended the legal principles concerning the wage nature or ordinary-wage nature of welfare points, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is well-founded.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the part of the judgment below against which the Defendant lost is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further hearing and determination. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order, with the unanimous consent of the participating Justices.
[Attachment: List of Plaintiffs: Omitted]
Justice Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice), Ahn Cheol-sang, Noh Jeong-hee (Justice in Charge), Kim Sang-hwan