대법원 2015두36157 — Revocation of Disposition Denying Correction of Average Wage and Non-Payment of Insurance Benefit Difference

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] Wages that form the basis for calculating average wages refer to money and valuables paid by an employer to an employee as compensation for labor, which are paid continuously and regularly to the employee and for which the employer is obligated to pay under a collective agreement, employment rules, remuneration regulations, employment contract, labor practice, etc.

If management evaluation performance bonuses (경영평가성과급) are paid continuously and regularly, and the recipients and payment conditions thereof are fixed such that the employer is obligated to pay them, then such bonuses have the character of wages paid as compensation for labor and thus should be included in the wages forming the basis for calculating average wages. The mere fact that whether such management evaluation performance bonuses are paid, or the rate thereof, may vary depending on the results of management performance evaluation does not by itself mean that the management evaluation performance bonuses were not paid as compensation for labor.

[2] In a case where Gap joined and worked at the Korea Appraisal Board (한국감정원) and died from an occupational accident, and the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (근로복지공단) paid survivor benefits and funeral expenses to Eul, a bereaved family member of Gap, and Eul filed a claim against the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service for correction of average wage and payment of the difference in insurance benefits, asserting that performance bonuses, etc. had been omitted in calculating the average wage: during the period when the Korea Appraisal Board fell under the category of a government-affiliated institution, the Government determined the performance bonus payment rate applicable to the Korea Appraisal Board according to the results of management performance evaluation under the former Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions (정부산하기관 관리기본법) (abolished by Article 2, Item 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률), Act No. 8258, January 19, 2007); and after the enforcement of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, the Government determined such rate according to the results of management performance evaluation under the Act on the Management of Public Institutions. Accordingly, the Korea Appraisal Board paid the remaining performance bonus to its employees each year based on the performance bonus payment rate set by the Government, in accordance with the criteria and calculation method set forth in the remuneration regulations and the internal management evaluation manual. Furthermore, when severance pay was paid after Gap died from the occupational accident, the average wage was calculated including all such performance bonuses paid as described above. In light of these circumstances, the remaining performance bonus paid by the Korea Appraisal Board to Gap was paid continuously and regularly, and the recipients and payment conditions thereof were fixed such that the employer was obligated to pay it; therefore, it should be regarded as having the character of wages paid as compensation for labor. Accordingly, the court held that the lower court's determination that the remaining performance bonus should be included in the total amount of wages forming the basis for calculating average wages was justified.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Public enterprises or quasi-governmental institutions pay performance-based bonuses to their employees (hereinafter “management evaluation performance bonus”) based on the results of management performance evaluations conducted by the Minister of Strategy and Finance pursuant to the Act on the Management of Public Institutions (공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률, hereinafter the “Public Institutions Management Act”). The issue in this case is whether the management evaluation performance bonus constitutes wages that form the basis for calculating average wages.

Wages that form the basis for calculating average wages refer to money and valuables paid by the employer to the employee as compensation for work, which are paid continuously and regularly, and for which the employer is obligated to make payment under a collective agreement, employment rules, remuneration regulations, employment contract, labor practice, or the like (see, e.g., Supreme Court Judgment 2001Da53950, decided October 23, 2001).

If a management evaluation performance bonus is paid continuously and regularly, and the recipients and conditions of payment are fixed such that the employer is under an obligation to pay it, then it should be regarded as having the character of wages paid as compensation for work, and thus should be included in the wages forming the basis for calculating average wages. The mere fact that whether it is paid, or the rate at which it is paid, may vary depending on the results of the management performance evaluation does not, by itself, mean that the management evaluation performance bonus was not paid as compensation for work.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts may be found.

A. The Plaintiff’s son, the non-party (hereinafter “the Deceased”), joined Korea Appraisal Board Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Appraisal Board”) on February 5, 2007, and while working there, died on November 8, 2008, due to an occupational accident.

B. At the time of the Deceased’s death, Article 32(2) of Korea Appraisal Board’s Remuneration Regulations provided: “150% of the performance bonus shall be paid on the first business day of February, and the remaining performance bonus shall be paid within 30 days from the date the results of the management evaluation under Article 11 of the Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions (정부산하기관 관리기본법) are announced, differentially according to the previous year’s performance.” Article 33(3) of the Remuneration Regulations provided: “Specific matters concerning the subjects and criteria for payment of the remaining performance bonus shall be governed by the Internal Management Evaluation Manual under Article 19 of the Management Plan and Evaluation Regulations.” Korea Appraisal Board’s Internal Management Evaluation Manual (2008) specifically set forth the subjects to which the remaining performance bonus applied, the timing of payment, the method of calculating the differential payment rate based on the performance bonus payment rate set by the government, and the subjects and criteria for payment.

C. Article 11(1) of the former Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions (정부산하기관 관리기본법, abolished by Act No. 8258 on January 19, 2007) provided that the head of the competent authority was to evaluate the management performance of government-invested institutions meeting certain requirements. Upon the abolition of that Act, Article 48(1) of the Public Institutions Management Act, enacted and enforced in its place, provided that the Minister of Planning and Budget (changed to the Minister of Strategy and Finance after the Government Organization Act (정부조직법) was amended by Act No. 8852 on February 9, 2008) was to evaluate the management performance of public enterprises and quasi-governmental institutions. During the period in which Korea Appraisal Board fell under the category of a government-invested institution, the government determined the performance bonus payment rate applicable to Korea Appraisal Board based on the results of the management performance evaluation under the former Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions, and after the enforcement of the Public Institutions Management Act, based on the results of the management performance evaluation under that Act.

D. Each year, based on the performance bonus payment rate determined by the government as described above, Korea Appraisal Board calculated and paid the remaining performance bonus to its employees in accordance with the standards and calculation methods set forth in the Remuneration Regulations and the Internal Management Evaluation Manual.

E. In 2008 as well, based on the performance bonus payment rate determined by the government, and in accordance with the Remuneration Regulations and the Internal Management Evaluation Manual, Korea Appraisal Board paid the Deceased a performance bonus of 2,068,500 won on February 1, 2008, and the remaining performance bonus of 2,931,000 won on July 16, 2008. When paying the retirement allowance after the Deceased’s death, the performance bonuses paid as described above were all included in the calculation of the average wage.

3. In light of the legal principles set forth above, and in view of these factual findings, the remaining performance bonus (hereinafter “the instant remaining performance bonus”) that Korea Appraisal Board paid to the Deceased up until around 2008 was paid continuously and regularly, and the recipients and conditions of payment were fixed such that the employer was under an obligation to make payment; therefore, it should be regarded as having the character of wages paid as compensation for work. The judgment below, which held to the same effect that the instant remaining performance bonus should be included in the total amount of wages forming the basis for calculating average wages, is justified. The Defendant’s ground of appeal, arguing that the instant remaining performance bonus was not paid as compensation for work, or that it does not constitute wages because it was paid on a temporary and indeterminate basis, is not accepted.

4. Since the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, it is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. The judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order, with the unanimous consent of the Justices.

Justice Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice), Cho Hee-dae, Kim Jae-hyung (Justice in charge), Min Yu-sook

【판결요지】

[1] 평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금은 사용자가 근로의 대가로 근로자에게 지급하는 금품으로서, 근로자에게 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고 단체협약, 취업규칙, 급여규정, 근로계약, 노동관행 등에 의하여 사용자에게 그 지급의무가 지워져 있는 것을 말한다.

경영평가성과급이 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고 지급대상, 지급조건 등이 확정되어 있어 사용자에게 지급의무가 있다면, 이는 근로의 대가로 지급되는 임금의 성질을 가지므로 평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금에 포함된다고 보아야 한다. 경영실적 평가결과에 따라 그 지급 여부나 지급률이 달라질 수 있다고 하더라도 그러한 이유만으로 경영평가성과급이 근로의 대가로 지급된 것이 아니라고 볼 수 없다.

[2] 甲이 한국감정원에 입사하여 근무하던 중 업무상 재해로 사망하여 근로복지공단이 甲의 유족인 乙에게 유족급여 및 장의비를 지급하였는데, 乙이 근로복지공단을 상대로 평균임금을 산정할 때 성과상여금 등을 누락하였다면서 평균임금 정정 및 보험급여차액 지급을 청구한 사안에서, 정부는 한국감정원이 정부산하기관에 해당하는 기간 동안에는 구 정부산하기관 관리기본법(2007. 1. 19. 법률 제8258호 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조 제2호로 폐지)에 의한 경영실적 평가결과에 따라, 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률 시행 이후에는 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률에 의한 경영실적 평가결과에 따라 한국감정원에 적용되는 성과급 지급률을 정하였고, 이에 한국감정원은 매년 정부가 정한 성과급 지급률을 기초로 보수규정과 내부경영평가편람에서 정한 기준과 계산방식에 따라 소속 직원들에게 잔여 성과상여금을 지급하였으며, 甲이 업무상 재해로 사망한 이후 퇴직금을 지급할 때에도 위와 같이 지급한 성과상여금을 모두 포함하여 평균임금을 산정한 점 등에 비추어, 한국감정원이 甲에게 지급한 잔여 성과상여금은 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고, 지급대상과 지급조건 등이 확정되어 있어 사용자에게 지급의무가 지워져 있으므로 근로의 대가로 지급되는 임금의 성질을 가진다고 보아야 하므로, 잔여 성과상여금이 평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금 총액에 포함된다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례.

【참조조문】

[1] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제6호

[2] 구 정부산하기관 관리기본법(2007. 1. 19. 법률 제8258호 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조 제2호로 폐지) 제11조 제1항(현행 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률 제48조 제1항 참조), 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률 제48조 제1항, 산업재해보상보험법 제5조 제2호, 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제6호

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 1997. 5. 28. 선고 96누15084 판결(공1997하, 1893), 대법원 1999. 2. 9. 선고 97다56235 판결(공1999상, 451), 대법원 2001. 10. 23. 선고 2001다53950 판결(공2001하, 2529), 대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2012다48077 판결

【주문】·【이유】 전문 2,297자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 피상고인】

【피고, 상고인】 근로복지공단

【원심판결】 서울고법 2014. 12. 19. 선고 2014누62908 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 판단한다.

1. 공기업이나 준정부기관이 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률(이하 ‘공공기관운영법’이라 한다)에 근거하여 기획재정부장관의 경영실적 평가결과에 따라 직원들에게 성과급(이하 ‘경영평가성과급’이라 한다)을 지급하고 있는데, 경영평가성과급이 평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금에 해당하는지가 이 사건의 쟁점이다.

평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금은 사용자가 근로의 대가로 근로자에게 지급하는 금품으로서, 근로자에게 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고 단체협약, 취업규칙, 급여규정, 근로계약, 노동관행 등에 의하여 사용자에게 그 지급의무가 지워져 있는 것을 말한다(대법원 2001. 10. 23. 선고 2001다53950 판결 등 참조).

2. 원심판결 이유와 기록에 따르면 다음의 사실을 알 수 있다.

가. 원고의 아들 소외인은 2007. 2. 5. 주식회사 한국감정원(이하 ‘한국감정원’이라 한다)에 입사하여 근무하던 중 2008. 11. 8. 업무상 재해로 사망하였다.

나. 소외인 사망 당시 한국감정원의 보수규정 제32조 제2항은 “성과상여금 중 150%는 2월 첫 영업일에 지급하며, 잔여 성과상여금은 정부산하기관 관리기본법 제11조의 규정에 의한 경영평가 결과가 공표된 날로부터 30일 이내에 전년도 성과에 따라 차등 지급한다.”라고 정하고 있었고, 보수규정 제33조 제3항은 “잔여 성과상여금의 지급대상 및 기준 등 구체적 사항은 경영계획 및 평가규정 제19조의 규정에 의한 내부경영평가편람에 따른다.”라고 정하고 있었다. 한국감정원의 내부경영평가편람(2008년)은 잔여 성과상여금의 적용대상, 지급시기, 정부가 정한 성과급 지급률을 기초로 차등지급률을 산정하는 방법, 지급대상과 기준 등을 구체적으로 정하고 있었다.

다. 구 정부산하기관 관리기본법(2007. 1. 19. 법률 제8258호로 폐지) 제11조 제1항은 일정한 요건에 해당하는 정부산하기관에 대해 주무기관의 장이 경영실적을 평가하도록 정하고 있었다. 위 법률이 폐지되면서 제정·시행된 공공기관운영법 제48조 제1항은 기획예산처장관(2008. 2. 9. 법률 제8852호로 정부조직법이 개정된 이후에는 기획재정부장관으로 변경)이 공기업·준정부기관의 경영실적을 평가하도록 정하였다. 정부는 한국감정원이 정부산하기관에 해당하는 기간 동안에는 구 정부산하기관 관리기본법에 의한 경영실적 평가결과에 따라, 공공기관운영법 시행 이후에는 공공기관운영법에 의한 경영실적 평가결과에 따라 한국감정원에 적용되는 성과급 지급률을 정하였다.

라. 한국감정원은 위와 같이 매년 정부가 정한 성과급 지급률을 기초로 보수규정과 내부경영평가편람에서 정한 기준과 계산방식에 따라 잔여 성과상여금을 산정하여 소속 직원들에게 지급하였다.

마. 한국감정원은 2008년도에도 정부가 정한 성과급 지급률을 기초로 보수규정과 내부경영평가편람에 따라 소외인에게 2008. 2. 1. 성과상여금 2,068,500원을, 2008. 7. 16. 잔여 성과상여금 2,931,000원을 지급하였고, 소외인이 사망한 이후 퇴직금을 지급할 때에도 위와 같이 지급한 성과상여금을 모두 포함하여 평균임금을 산정하였다.

3. 이러한 사실관계를 위에서 본 법리에 비추어 보면, 한국감정원이 2008년 무렵까지 소외인에게 지급한 이 사건 잔여 성과상여금은 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고, 지급대상과 지급조건 등이 확정되어 있어 사용자에게 지급의무가 지워져 있으므로 근로의 대가로 지급되는 임금의 성질을 가진다고 보아야 한다. 같은 취지에서 이 사건 잔여 성과상여금이 평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금 총액에 포함된다고 본 원심판단은 정당하다. 이 사건 잔여 성과상여금이 근로의 대상으로 지급된 것이 아니라거나 일시적·불확정적으로 지급되는 것이어서 임금에 해당하지 않는다는 상고이유 주장은 받아들이지 않는다.

4. 피고의 상고는 이유 없으므로 이를 기각하고 상고비용은 패소자가 부담하기로 하여, 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이동원(재판장) 조희대 김재형(주심) 민유숙

Revocation of Disposition Denying Correction of Average Wage and Non-Payment of Insurance Benefit Difference평균임금정정불승인및보험급여차액부지급처분취소

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[Plaintiff, Appellee]

[Order]

[Reasoning]

【판결요지】

【참조조문】

【참조판례】

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases citing this decision

Related tools & guides