Workbear재주넘는곰
대법원 98두15269

Revocation of Disposition Denying Correction of Average Wage Application평균임금정정신청불승인처분취소

Decided2000. 04. 25. Court대법원Worker won
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

In this case, a taxi driver's personal income—the portion of transportation revenue remaining after deducting the fixed quota payment (사납금) to the company—was determined to constitute wages (임금). The Supreme Court ruled that when calculating average wages for industrial accident insurance (산재보험) purposes, this personal income must be included alongside the base salary paid directly by the company. The Court found unlawful the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service's (근로복지공단) calculation of average wages that excluded this personal income.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA taxi driver injured in a workplace accident challenged the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service's calculation of average wages, which excluded his personal income (transportation revenue minus the fixed quota payment).
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that a taxi driver's personal income constitutes wages as compensation for labor and therefore must be included when calculating average wages for industrial accident insurance purposes.
  • LessonTaxi drivers should keep thorough records of their personal income (not just base salary), as this can be recognized as wages when calculating industrial accident insurance benefits after a workplace injury.
Issues
  • Whether a taxi driver's personal income (transportation revenue minus the fixed quota payment) constitutes wages (임금) under labor law
  • Whether such personal income must be included when calculating average wages (평균임금) for industrial accident insurance (산재보험) purposes
Key reasoning

When a transportation company pays a taxi driver a base salary and additionally allows the driver to freely dispose of the remaining transportation revenue after deducting the fixed quota (사납금), this arrangement constitutes a method of paying compensation for labor that accounts for the unique nature of taxi driving work and administrative convenience in calculation. As such, this personal income portion qualifies as wages (임금) under labor law, not merely incidental earnings. Since wages form the basis for calculating average wages (평균임금) used in industrial accident insurance benefits, excluding this personal income from the calculation understates the worker's true compensation and violates the purpose of the average wage system, which is to accurately reflect a worker's typical earnings for benefit calculation purposes.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] Where a transportation company pays its taxi drivers a fixed monthly salary according to the actual number of days worked, and in addition allows the driver to freely dispose of the remaining income after deducting the fixed quota (sannapgeum) from the daily transportation revenue as the driver's personal income, the remaining portion after deduction of the said fixed quota, which becomes the driver's personal income, must be deemed to have been paid as consideration for labor in light of the peculiarities of the working conditions of commercial taxi drivers and the convenience of calculation, and thus this too constitutes wages. Accordingly, in calculating the average wage, which serves as the standard for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법), the remaining income after deduction of the fixed quota from the transportation revenue must also be included.

Full text (English, AI translation) 4,473 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellee] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellant] Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service
[Judgment Below] Busan High Court Judgment 97Gu17308, decided August 19, 1998

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

[Reasoning]

We examine the grounds of appeal.

First, as to the Defendant's pre-merits objection (본안전항변), the court below, upon comprehensive consideration of the evidence it adopted in its judgment, found that the Plaintiff had filed the request for reexamination within the lawful period after being served with the decision on the request for examination. Upon review of the record in light of this finding, the above determination of the court below is justified, and it cannot be said that there was any illegality affecting the judgment due to a violation of the rules of experience or the rules of evidence, as argued. This ground of appeal is without merit.

Further, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, upon comprehensive consideration of the relevant evidence, found the following facts: that the deceased non-party (hereinafter "the Deceased") was employed by Samwoo Transportation Co., Ltd. (유한회사 삼우교통, a limited liability company; hereinafter "the Non-Party Company"), which received from its employed drivers, including the Deceased, a fixed amount out of the daily transportation revenue as a quota payment (사납금) (the "9,000 won" quota amount referred to at the time in the judgment below appears to be a clerical error for "96,000 won"), and used this as a source of funds to pay its employed drivers a fixed monthly amount in the name of basic pay and the like; that the drivers of the Non-Party Company did not remit to the Non-Party Company the remainder of the transportation revenue after deducting the above quota payment, and the Company likewise did not demand such remittance, such that this remainder was, in effect, treated as the individual income of each driver and left to their free disposal; and that, at the time of the accident in this case, the taxi drivers of the Non-Party Company were treating approximately 100,000 won per day, out of the transportation revenue remaining after deduction of the quota payment, as their individual income. Based on these findings, the court below determined as follows: where, as found above, a transportation company pays its employed taxi drivers a fixed monthly wage according to their actual days worked, and additionally leaves to the drivers' free disposal, as their individual income, the remainder of the daily transportation revenue after deduction of the quota payment, the portion remaining after deduction of the quota payment—which becomes the driver's individual income—must also be considered payment made in return for labor, in consideration of the particular nature of the working conditions of commercial taxi drivers and the convenience of calculation, and thus likewise constitutes wages (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da36192, decided December 24, 1993, and 96Nu17905, decided March 25, 1997, among others). Accordingly, in calculating the average wage (평균임금), which serves as the basis for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법), the remaining revenue after deduction of the quota payment must also be included therein. On this basis, the court below determined that the Defendant's disposition—calculating the average wage based solely on the salary the Deceased received directly from the Non-Party Company, without including in wages the portion of transportation revenue that constituted the Deceased's individual income, then paying survivor benefits and other insurance benefits based on that average wage, and disapproving the Plaintiff's application to correct the average wage—was unlawful. Upon review of the record, the factual findings and determination of the court below are deemed justified, and the Supreme Court precedents cited in the argument concern different factual circumstances and cannot be regarded as appropriate precedents applicable to this case. This ground of appeal is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This Judgment is rendered as stated in the Order, with the unanimous consent of the participating Justices.

Justice Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice), Lee Don-hui, Lee Im-su (Justice in Charge), Song Jin-hoon

【판결요지】

운송회사가 그 소속 택시운전사들에게 매월 실제 근로일수에 따른 일정액의 급료를 지급하는 외에 하루 운송수입금에게 사납금을 공제한 나머지 수입금을 운전사 개인의 수입으로 하여 자유로운 처분에 맡겨 온 경우에는 운전사 개인의 수입으로 되는 위 사납금을 공제한 나머지 부분은 영업용 택시운전사의 근로형태의 특수성과 계산의 편의 등을 고려하여 근로의 대가를 지급한 것이라고 할 것이어서 이 역시 임금에 해당하므로, 산업재해보상보험법상 보험급여의 기준이 되는 평균임금을 산정함에 있어서도 운송수입금 중 사납금을 공제한 나머지 수입금을 포함하여야 한다.

【참조조문】

근로기준법 제18조, 제19조 제1항, 산업재해보상보험법 제4조 제2호

【참조판례】

대법원 1985. 3. 26. 선고 84도1861 판결(공1985, 655), 대법원 1988. 3. 22. 선고 87다카570 판결(공1988, 673), 대법원 1993. 12. 24. 선고 91다36192 판결(공1994상, 494), 대법원 1997. 3. 25. 선고 96누17905 판결, 대법원 1998. 3. 13. 선고 95다55733 판결(공1998상, 1004), 대법원 1998. 3. 13. 선고 95다55733 판결(공1998상, 1004), 대법원 1999. 4. 23. 선고 98다18568 판결(공1999상, 992)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,509자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 피상고인】 원고

【피고, 상고인】 근로복지공단

【원심판결】 부산고법 1998. 8. 19. 선고 97구17308 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 본다.

먼저 피고의 본안전항변에 대하여, 원심은 그 판결이 채용하고 있는 증거를 종합하여 원고가 심사청구결정을 송달받고 그 적법한 기간 내에 재심사청구를 하였다고 인정하였는바, 이를 기록에 비추어 살펴보면 위와 같은 원심의 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 논하는 바와 같은 경험칙 또는 채증법칙을 위반하여 판결에 영향을 미친 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다. 논지는 이유가 없다.

또 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 관련 증거를 종합하여 망 소외인이 소속된 유한회사 삼우교통(이하 '소외 회사'라고 한다)는 망인을 포함한 소속 운전사들로부터 하루의 운송수입금 중 일정액을 사납금(원심판결문의 당시 사납금 9,000원은 금 96,000원의 오기로 보임)으로 납입 받고, 이를 재원으로 하여 매월 일정액을 기본급 등 명목으로 소속 운전사들에게 지급하여 온 사실, 소외 회사의 운전사들은 위 사납금을 제외한 나머지 운송수입금을 소외 회사에 납부하지 아니하였고, 회사에서도 그 납부를 요구하지도 아니하여 이는 사실상 운전사 개인 수입으로 하여 자유로운 처분에 맡겨져 온 사실, 이 사건 재해 당시 소외 회사의 택시운전사들은 사납금을 제외한 운송수입금으로 1일 금 100,000원 내외의 수입금을 개인의 수입으로 하고 있었던 사실을 인정한 다음, 위 인정과 같이 운송회사가 그 소속 택시운전사들에게 매월 실제 근로일수에 따른 일정액의 급료를 지급하는 외에 하루 운송수입금에게 사납금을 공제한 나머지 수입금을 운전사 개인의 수입으로 하여 자유로운 처분에 맡겨 온 경우에는 운전사 개인의 수입으로 되는 위 사납금을 공제한 나머지 부분은 영업용 택시운전사의 근로형태의 특수성과 계산의 편의 등을 고려하여 근로의 대가를 지급한 것이라고 할 것이어서 이 역시 임금에 해당하므로(대법원 1993. 12. 24. 선고 91다36192 판결, 1997. 3. 25. 선고 96누17905 판결 등 참조), 산업재해보상보험법상 보험급여의 기준이 되는 평균임금을 산정함에 있어서는 위 사납금을 공제한 나머지 수입금 역시 이에 포함되어야 할 것이라고 하여, 피고가 망인의 개인 수입으로 된 운송수입 부분을 임금에 포함시키지 아니한 채 망인의 소외 회사로부터 직접 지급받은 급료만을 기초로 하여 평균임금을 산정한 다음 이를 기준으로 하여 유족급여 등 보험급여를 지급하고, 원고의 평균임금 정정신청을 불승인한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다고 판단하였는바, 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 이러한 원심의 사실인정과 판단은 정당한 것으로 여겨지고, 논지가 주장하는 대법원 판결은 사안을 달리하여 이 사건에 있어 적절한 선례로 볼 수는 없다. 논지는 이유가 없다.

그러므로 상고를 기각하고 상고비용은 패소자의 부담으로 하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 윤재식(재판장) 이돈희 이임수(주심) 송진훈

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2009구단9256 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
평균임금정정신청및보험급여차액청구서부지급처분취소
#2
2016구단56922 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
평균임금정정및보험급여차액지급거부처분취소
#3
2009구단4787 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Correction of Average Wage
#4
2016구합6881 · 울산지방법원 0001-01-01
평균임금정정불승인처분 취소 청구의 소
#5
2017구단56899 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
Revocation of Disposition Denying Correction of Average Wage

Cases citing this decision

2016두42289 · 대법원 2019-07-25
Revocation of Disposition Ordering Repayment of Overpaid Job
2005다25113 · 대법원 2007-07-12
Retirement Pay
2006다42313 · 대법원 2006-11-09
Retirement Pay
2003가단99321 · 부산지법 2004-06-24
Retirement Pay
2002다4399 · 대법원 2002-08-23
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)