[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellee] Successor to the litigation of Korea○○○, School Juridical Person △△△ University, and two others (Attorney: Law Firm Idam, Attorney in charge Lee Hee-jin)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Judgment, October 12, 2012, Case No. 2010Na117476
[Order]
The part of the judgment below concerning the Plaintiff's loss against Defendant 1 School Juridical Person is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Plaintiff's appeal against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 is dismissed in its entirety. The costs of the appeal arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning] The grounds of appeal are examined as follows.
1. As to the grounds of appeal against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3
In light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the court below's determination that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3's liability for damages against the Plaintiff is not recognized, for the reasons stated in the judgment, is justified and may be upheld, and there is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles concerning tort as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the grounds of appeal against School Juridical Person △△△ University, the successor to the litigation of Defendant Korea○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the "Training Institute")
A. Regarding the effect of the collective agreement
The court below found the following facts: that the Training Institute and the Training Institute Branch of the National Public Research and Specialized Labor Union concluded the "Labor-Management Agreement on Wage Peak System and Open Recruitment System" (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") on October 9, 2006; that under the Agreement, when an employee working at the Training Institute reaches the age of 58, the wage peak system shall be mandatorily applied from the following month, whereby the wage is reduced annually by a certain percentage (10% in the first year, 20% in the second year, 30% in the third year, and 40% in the fourth year) based on the annual salary of the year immediately preceding the conversion to the wage peak system, while employment is extended for two years after retirement age, during which an amount equivalent to 20% of the annual salary is paid each year as wages. Based on these findings, the court below determined that since the wage peak system stipulated in the Agreement is not a structure involving a wage increase but rather a wage reduction, the implementation of the wage peak system under the Agreement is not invalid even though the Training Institute did not undergo the board of directors' resolution procedure or obtain the approval of the Minister of Labor as required under the former Korea Labor Education Institute Act (repealed by Act No. 9318 on December 31, 2008) (hereinafter the "former Korea Labor Education Institute Act").
However, this determination by the court below cannot be upheld as it stands.
The Training Institute is a juridical person established for the purpose of realizing the ideology of labor-management coexistence and prosperity and contributing to national economic development by establishing democratic labor-management relations, achieving industrial peace, and enhancing the capacity to resolve various labor relations issues through neutral and publicly credible education. For this establishment purpose, the former Korea Labor Education Institute Act provides that the government shall contribute, within the scope of the budget, the expenses necessary for the establishment of the Training Institute and its operation for each business year (Article 13); that the Training Institute must obtain the approval of the Minister of Labor for its budget and settlement of accounts for each business year (Article 16); and that important matters concerning the amendment of the articles of incorporation, the enactment and amendment of important regulations, business plans and budgets/settlements, and other important matters concerning the operation of the Training Institute shall be deliberated and resolved by the board of directors, which is composed of four labor representatives recommended by nationwide labor organizations, four employer representatives recommended by nationwide employer organizations, and public interest representatives recommended by the Minister of Labor (Articles 7 and 12).
However, the wage peak system stipulated in the Agreement involves reducing wages by a certain percentage until retirement age in exchange for extending employment for two years after retirement age, which inevitably entails amendments to personnel regulations and changes in the budget and scale of new employment, etc. Therefore, it can be evaluated as an important matter requiring a resolution of the board of directors for its determination or implementation.
Considering comprehensively the establishment purpose of the Training Institute, the process of raising and executing operating funds, the state's management and supervision, the composition of the board of directors, and various regulations concerning board resolutions, even if the Training Institute concluded the Agreement implementing a wage peak system whose content conflicts with the existing personnel regulations without going through a board resolution, such content of the collective agreement shall not be effective against the Training Institute or its employees.
Nevertheless, the court below determined, based solely on the reasons stated in its judgment, that the wage peak system stipulated in the Agreement was validly implemented. This judgment of the court below contains an error of misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the effect of collective agreements concluded by public institutions, which affected the judgment. The grounds of appeal pointing this out have merit.
B. Regarding ordinary wages
Ordinary wages, which the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) provides as the standard for calculating additional wages for extended, night, and holiday work, refer to wages that are agreed to be paid as compensation for the scheduled work that an employee ordinarily provides during the prescribed working hours, and which are paid regularly, uniformly, and fixedly. Here, "fixed wage" means, regardless of its name, the minimum wage that an employee who has worked the prescribed working hours on any given day would naturally and definitively receive as compensation for that day's work, even if the employee were to retire the following day. Therefore, wages that are scheduled to be paid as a matter of course, without regard to the fulfillment of any additional conditions, when an employee provides the prescribed work on any given day, and whose payment or amount is predetermined, may be considered to possess the characteristic of fixedness.
Where the payment or amount of a specific wage for a given year is determined based on the employee's work performance in the preceding year, since the payment or amount of that wage is definite for the given year, such wage should be regarded as a fixed wage for that year. However, where there are special circumstances suggesting that this is merely a case in which the wage that would ordinarily have been paid in the preceding year has merely had its payment timing delayed, fixedness cannot be recognized; but even in such cases, if a certain minimum amount is guaranteed to be paid even to an employee receiving the lowest performance grade, that amount may be regarded as a fixed wage to the extent of that guaranteed minimum (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399, decided December 18, 2013, etc.).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts can be ascertained: the Training Institute paid its employees subject to the annual salary system an amount equivalent to 600% of their base salary in the name of regular bonuses, divided and paid monthly; and according to the Training Institute's 2006 annual salary system implementation plan, the regular bonus was included in the performance-based annual salary, and its payment amount varied from 80% to 120% depending on the previous year's work performance evaluation.
Examining these facts in light of the legal principles set forth above, although the amount of the above regular bonus may vary depending on the results of the previous year's personnel evaluation, once the payment ratio is determined based on the results of the previous year's personnel evaluation, the corresponding amount is paid, without regard to the current year's work performance, as compensation for work performed during the current year, without variation in amount. As such, as long as an employee provides the prescribed work, its payment can be regarded as fixed, and therefore it constitutes ordinary wages, being a fixed wage paid regularly and uniformly.
Nevertheless, the court below determined, based solely on the reasons stated in its judgment, that the above regular bonus does not constitute ordinary wages. This judgment of the court below contains an error of misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the scope of ordinary wages, which affected the judgment. The grounds of appeal pointing this out also have merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below concerning the Plaintiff's loss against Defendant 1 School Juridical Person is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further examination and determination; the Plaintiff's appeal against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 is dismissed in its entirety; and the costs of the appeal arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the losing party. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Kim So-young (Presiding Justice), Lee In-bok (Justice in charge), Ko Young-han, Lee Ki-taek