Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 98다34393 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/1562 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 98다34393

Wages Dispute (Special Bonus Case)임금

Decided1999. 09. 03. Court대법원Case reversed and remanded (파기환송) — the Supreme Court overturned the worker-favorable rulings of the lower courts
한국어·Print
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.

This case addressed whether a special bonus (특별상여금) paid by a company qualified as 'wages' (임금) under Korean labor law. Because the payment criteria and timing were not fixed, and the bonus was not paid continuously or regularly, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not constitute wages. The worker won at both the first and second trial courts, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case (파기환송).

Key takeaways
  • CaseA worker disputed with the company over whether a special bonus he received counted as wages.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that the special bonus was not wages because its payment criteria and timing were undetermined and it was paid irregularly.
  • LessonTo have a bonus recognized as wages, employers must clearly define payment criteria in a collective agreement or employment rules and pay it continuously and regularly.
Issues
  • Whether the special bonus (특별상여금) qualifies as wages (임금) under labor law
  • Whether the requirement of continuous and regular payment was satisfied
Key reasoning

Under Korean labor law, for a payment to qualify as 'wages' (임금), it must be paid continuously and regularly, and the employer's obligation to pay it must be clearly established by a collective bargaining agreement (단체협약) or employment rules (취업규칙). In this case, the special bonus's payment criteria, amount, and timing were all uncertain and variable. Furthermore, the actual payment history showed irregular patterns rather than consistent, periodic distribution. Because the bonus lacked both the fixed entitlement basis and the regularity required by law, the Supreme Court held that it could not be classified as wages, reversing the lower courts' decisions.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] Wages refer to any and all money paid by an employer to an employee as compensation for labor, and where such payment is made continuously and regularly to the employee and the employer is obligated to make such payment pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (단체협약), rules of employment (취업규칙), etc., such payment falls within the concept of wages regardless of its name.

[2] A case holding that special bonuses cannot be deemed wages, where the basis for payment of the special bonus existed only in the salary regulations (급여규정), with no provision therefor in the collective bargaining agreement (단체협약), and even under the salary regulations, it was merely provided that the special bonus could be paid to employees whom the chairman specifically recognized as having rendered meritorious service, without any specific provisions regarding the criteria for payment, the amount to be paid, or the timing of payment, making it difficult to view the payment as fixed and determined; and where, in actual practice, the special bonus was first paid in 1987 at 30% of monthly salary, was not paid in 1988 or 1989, was paid again at 30% in 1990, was paid twice in 1991 totaling 120%, was paid at 100% in December for three years from 1992 to 1994, and was thereafter discontinued again, with the stated grounds for payment varying each time — in light of such payment standards and the varying stated grounds for payment, it is difficult to conclude that the special bonus was paid continuously and regularly, or that such a practice had been established, and therefore it cannot be regarded as falling within the concept of wages.

Full text (English, AI translation) 4,698 chars

[Plaintiff (Selected Party), Appellee] Plaintiff (Selected Party) (Attorney Lim Won-bae, Counsel for the Plaintiff)
[Defendant, Appellant] Gwangju Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Attorney Kim Seok-su, Counsel for the Defendant)
[Judgment Below] Gwangju District Court Decision 98Na1993 rendered on June 25, 1998

[Order]

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence it adopted, found as follows: under the Defendant's Compensation Regulations (급여규정), the Chairman may pay a special bonus to employees recognized as having rendered meritorious service, and, in fact, pursuant to this provision, the Defendant paid to all employees of the Secretariat, as indicated in Attachment 2 of the judgment below, 30% of the monthly salary in December 1987 and December 1990 (it appears that "December 29, 1991" in the record is a clerical error for "December 29, 1990"), 70% in June 1991 and 50% in December 1991, and 100% each December from 1992 through 1994, as special bonuses. The court below then determined that, although the Compensation Regulations do not specifically stipulate the conditions, amount, and timing of payment of the special bonus, since the special bonus had been paid continuously and regularly every December from 1992 onward, in an amount uniformly fixed at 100% of the monthly salary, and the reasons for payment were generally the same, namely, to boost employee morale and enhance welfare, the special bonus had acquired the character of wages paid as consideration for labor.

2. Wages refer to all money paid by an employer to an employee as consideration for labor; where such payment is made to the employee continuously and regularly, and the employer is obligated to make such payment pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (단체협약), employment rules (취업규칙), or the like, such payment falls within the concept of wages regardless of its designation (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da카19647, rendered December 7, 1990).

However, as lawfully found by the court below, the sole basis for payment of the special bonus at issue in this case is the Compensation Regulations referred to above. According to the record, under the Defendant's collective bargaining agreement, the wages of the Defendant's employees consist of base salary, various allowances, and bonuses (Article 18), and the bonuses are specified as follows: regular bonus (400%), New Year's holiday allowance (50%), physical fitness allowance (50%), long-service allowance (50-100%), summer vacation allowance (50%), Chuseok holiday allowance (50%), and winter support allowance (50%) (Article 22); there is no provision whatsoever concerning the special bonus.

Furthermore, even under the Compensation Regulations, the special bonus is merely stated as payable to employees whom the Chairman recognizes as having rendered particular meritorious service, with no specific provisions regarding the payment criteria, amount, or timing, making it difficult to conclude that its payment is fixed. Moreover, in actual practice, there is no material showing that the special bonus was paid before 1986; it was first paid in 1987 at 30% of the monthly salary; it was not paid in 1988 or 1989; it was paid again at 30% in 1990; it was paid twice in 1991 totaling 120%; it was paid at 100% each December from 1992 through 1994 for three years; and it was thereafter discontinued again, with the stated grounds for payment also varying. Given these facts, in light of the payment criteria and the stated grounds for payment, it is difficult to conclude that the special bonus was paid continuously and regularly every December at 100% of the monthly salary, or that such a practice had become established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da4649, rendered May 24, 1994).

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the special bonus at issue in this case falls under wages on the ground that its payment had become fixed as continuous and regular payment. This constitutes an error of law regarding the legal principles on wages that affected the outcome of the judgment, and the portion of the grounds of appeal pointing this out is well-founded.

3. Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further hearing and determination. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Presiding Justice Lee Don-hee
Justice Ji Chang-kwon
Justice Song Jin-hoon (Justice in charge)
Justice Byun Jae-seung

【판결요지】

[1] 임금이라 함은 사용자가 근로의 대가로 근로자에게 지급하는 일체의 금원으로서, 근로자에게 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고 그 지급에 관하여 단체협약, 취업규칙 등에 의하여 사용자에게 지급의무가 지워져 있다면, 그 명칭 여하를 불문하고 모두 그에 포함된다.

[2] 특별상여금의 지급 근거가 단지 급여규정에만 있을 뿐 단체협약에는 아무런 규정이 없고 또한 그 급여규정에 의하더라도 특별상여금은 회장이 특히 공로가 있다고 인정하는 직원에 대하여 지급할 수 있다고만 규정되어 있을 뿐, 구체적으로 그 지급기준, 지급액수, 지급시기 등에 관하여는 아무런 규정이 없어 그 지급이 확정되어 있다고 보기 어려우며, 실제로도 1987년에 처음으로 월 급여액의 30%가 지급되었고, 1988, 1989년에는 지급된 바 없다가, 1990년도에 다시 30%를 지급한 다음, 1991년도에는 2회에 걸쳐 도합 120%, 1992년부터 1994년까지 3년간은 12월에 100%씩 지급되다가 다시 중단되고, 그 지급 명목도 구구하였다면 그 지급기준과 지급명목 등에 비추어 특별상여금이 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고 있다거나, 그러한 관례가 성립되었다고 보기는 어려우므로 임금에 속한다고 볼 수 없다고 한 사례.

【참조조문】

[1] 구 근로기준법(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5309호로 제정되기 전의 것) 제18조(현행 제18조 참조)

[2] 구 근로기준법(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5309호로 제정되기 전의 것) 제18조(현행 제18조 참조)

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 1990. 12. 7. 선고 90다카19647 판결(공1991, 432), 대법원 1997. 5. 28. 선고 96누15084 판결(공1997하, 1893), 대법원 1999. 2. 9. 선고 97다56235 판결(공1999상, 451), 대법원 1999. 5. 12. 선고 97다5015 전원합의체 판결(공1999상, 1144) / [2] 대법원 1994. 5. 24. 선고 93다4649 판결(공1994하, 1786)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,929자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고(선정당사자), 피상고인】 원고(선정당사자) (소송대리인 변호사 임원배)

【피고, 상고인】 광주상공회의소 (소송대리인 변호사 김석수)

【원심판결】 광주지법 1998. 6. 25. 선고 98나1993 판결

【주 문】

원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 본다.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 채용 증거들에 의하여, 피고의 급여규정에 의하면 공로가 있다고 인정하는 직원에 대하여는 회장이 특별상여금을 지급할 수 있도록 규정되어 있고, 실제로 이 규정에 따라 피고가 사무국 전직원에게 원심 판시 별지 제2 기재와 같이 1987년과 1990년('1991. 12. 29.'은 '1990. 12. 29.'의 오기로 보인다.)의 12월에 월 급여액의 30%를, 1991년의 6월에 70%, 12월에 50%를, 1992, 1993, 1994년의 매 12월에 100%를 특별상여금으로 지급한 사실을 인정한 다음, 급여규정에 특별상여금의 지급조건, 금액, 지급시기 등에 관하여 구체적으로 정하여진 바는 없으나, 특별상여금은 1992년부터 매년 12월에 계속적·정기적으로 지급되어 왔고, 그 액수는 월급의 100% 상당금으로 그 지급액이 일률적으로 확정되었다고 볼 수 있으며, 지급사유가 직원의 사기 진작, 복지 증진 등으로 대체로 동일한 점에 비추어 보면 특별상여금은 근로의 대가로 지급되는 임금의 성질을 가지게 되었다고 판단하였다.

2. 임금이라 함은 사용자가 근로의 대가로 근로자에게 지급하는 일체의 금원으로서, 근로자에게 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고 그 지급에 관하여 단체협약, 취업규칙 등에 의하여 사용자에게 지급의무가 지워져 있다면 그 명칭 여하를 불문하고 모두 그에 포함된다(대법원 1990. 12. 7. 선고 90다카19647 판결 참조).

그러나 원심이 적법하게 인정한 바와 같이, 이 사건 특별상여금의 지급근거는 단지 앞서 본 급여규정뿐이고, 기록에 의하면, 피고의 단체협약상 피고 직원의 임금은 본봉, 제 수당, 상여금으로 구성되어 있고(제18조), 상여금으로는 정기(400%), 설날찬대(50%), 체력단련비(50%), 정근수당(50~100%), 하계휴가비(50%), 추석찬대(50%), 월동지원비(50%)를 지급하는 것으로 규정되어 있을 뿐(제22조), 특별상여금에 대하여는 아무런 규정이 없다.

또한 급여규정에 의하더라도, 특별상여금은 회장이 특히 공로가 있다고 인정하는 직원에 대하여 지급할 수 있다고만 규정되어 있을 뿐, 구체적으로 그 지급기준, 지급액수, 지급시기 등에 관하여는 아무런 규정이 없어 그 지급이 확정되어 있다고 보기 어려운 데다가, 실제로도 1986년 이전에는 특별상여금이 지급되었다고 볼 자료를 찾아볼 수 없고, 1987년에 처음으로 월 급여액의 30%가 지급되었고, 1988, 1989년에는 지급된 바 없다가, 1990년도에 다시 30%를 지급한 다음, 1991년도에는 2회에 걸쳐 도합 120%, 1992년부터 1994년까지 3년간은 12월에 100%씩 지급되다가 다시 중단되고, 그 지급 명목도 구구한바, 이러한 사실관계 아래에서라면, 그 지급기준과 지급명목 등에 비추어 특별상여금이 월 급여의 100%씩 매년 12월에 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고 있다거나, 그러한 관례가 성립되었다고 보기는 어렵다(대법원 1994. 5. 24. 선고 93다4649 판결 등 참조).

그럼에도 불구하고, 원심이 이 사건 특별상여금이 계속적·정기적으로 지급되는 것으로 확정되었다는 이유로 이를 임금에 속한다고 판단한 것은 임금에 관한 법리를 오해하여 판결 결과에 영향을 미친 위법을 저지른 것으로서, 상고이유 중 이 점을 지적하는 부분은 이유 있다.

3. 그러므로 원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 다시 심리·판단하게 하기 위하여 원심법원에 환송하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이돈희(재판장) 지창권 송진훈(주심) 변재승

Related statutes

근로기준법 제2조

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2020다247190 · 대법원 2024-12-19
Wages [Case concerning whether regular bonuses conditioned o
#2
2022나75299 · 서울중앙지방법원 2023-10-12
Wages
#3
2023다302838 · 대법원 2024-12-19
Wages [Case concerning whether a fixed periodic bonus (정기상여금
#4
2019다223129 · 대법원 2020-01-16
Wages (임금)
#5
2008다6052 · 대법원 2010-05-13
Wages (Case No. 2008Da6052)

Cases citing this decision

2011다20034 · 대법원 2012-02-09
Wages Dispute Case
2007다90760 · 대법원 2010-05-20
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case
2006다48229 · 대법원 2006-12-08
Wages
2004다13755 · 대법원 2005-10-13
Wages
2004다13762 · 대법원 2005-10-13
Wages

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.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)