Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 96누15084 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/1581 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 96누15084

Revocation of Disapproval of Correction of Average Wage (평균임금정정불승인처분취소)평균임금정정불승인처분취소

Decided1997. 05. 28. Court대법원Worker won (case reversed and remanded in worker's favor)
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 concerned whether a monthly vehicle operation allowance paid by a transportation company—calculated in proportion to the number of trips driven—should be included in the calculation of 'average wage' (평균임금) for purposes such as severance pay (퇴직금). The Supreme Court (대법원) held that an allowance paid continuously and regularly according to a fixed payment standard constitutes compensation for labor, not mere reimbursement of actual expenses, and therefore must be included in the average wage calculation. Finding that the lower court erred by treating the allowance as expense reimbursement and excluding it from the average wage, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA transportation company sought to exclude from average wage calculation a monthly vehicle operation allowance paid in proportion to the number of trips driven.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that an allowance paid continuously under a fixed payment standard is compensation for labor, not expense reimbursement, and must be included in average wage.
  • LessonEven if an allowance varies with workload, if it is paid regularly according to a fixed payment standard, it must be included when calculating average wage (평균임금).
Issues
  • Whether a vehicle operation allowance should be included in the total wages used as the basis for calculating average wage (평균임금)
  • The criteria for distinguishing between an allowance for reimbursement of actual expenses and wages paid as compensation for labor
Key reasoning

The allowance in question was paid at a fixed rate (10,000 KRW per trip) in proportion to the number of trips driven, and was paid continuously and regularly each month. The Court reasoned that such regular, rule-based payments—regardless of variation based on workload—represent wages that the employer is obligated to pay as compensation for labor, rather than reimbursement for actual expenses incurred. Because the allowance followed an established payment practice and was not simply reimbursing costs, it should be treated as part of the wage total forming the basis for calculating average wage. The lower court's classification of the allowance as expense reimbursement, and its consequent exclusion from the average wage calculation, was therefore legally erroneous.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] The total amount of wages that forms the basis for calculating average wages includes all money and valuables paid by the employer to an employee as remuneration for labor, and where such payment is made continuously and regularly to the employee and the employer is obligated to make such payment under a collective agreement, work rules, etc., it is included regardless of its designation. The fact that the employer has an obligation to pay money or valuables that have the character of remuneration for labor means that the employer cannot arbitrarily decide whether or not to make such payment, and the basis for the occurrence of such obligation to pay may be a collective agreement, work rules, salary regulations, or an employment contract, or it may be a labor practice, such as where the payment has been made continuously in accordance with the employer's policy or practice to the extent that a custom has been formed whereby both labor and management regard such payment as a matter of course.

[2] In a case where the employer had set a payment standard of KRW 10,000 per trip and had continuously and regularly paid, on each monthly wage payment date, an amount calculated in proportion to the number of trips operated as a vehicle operation allowance, the Court held that the employer was obligated, by custom, to uniformly pay the operation allowance of KRW 10,000 per trip, and further held that it was reasonable to view this operation allowance as having been paid as remuneration for labor rather than as money of the nature of reimbursement of actual expenses intended to compensate for additional costs incurred due to long-distance operation. On these grounds, the Court reversed the judgment of the court below, which had failed to include this allowance in the total amount of wages forming the basis for calculating average wages.

Full text (English, AI translation) 3,371 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellee] Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (근로복지공단)
[Judgment Below] Daejeon High Court Judgment 1996. 8. 30., Case No. 95Gu2720

[Order]

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

[Reasoning]

We examine the grounds of appeal.
The total amount of wages, which forms the basis for calculating average wages, includes all money and valuables paid by the employer to the worker as remuneration for labor, provided that such payments are made continuously and regularly to the worker and the employer is obligated to make such payments under a collective agreement, employment rules, etc., regardless of the name given to such payments (see Supreme Court Decision 1990. 12. 7., 90Daka19647). Furthermore, the fact that the employer is obligated to pay money or valuables having the character of remuneration for labor means that the employer cannot arbitrarily decide whether or not to make such payment, and the basis for the obligation to pay may be a collective agreement, employment rules, salary regulations, or an employment contract, or it may be based on the employer's policy (see Supreme Court Decision 1991. 1. 15., 90Da6170), or on labor practice, such as where the payment has been made continuously in accordance with custom to the extent that a practice has been established between labor and management whereby such payment is regarded as a matter of course.

According to the facts found by the court below, the driving allowance at issue in the judgment below was set at a payment standard of KRW 10,000 per trip, and the amount calculated in proportion to the number of trips between Daejeon and Danyang was paid continuously and regularly on the monthly wage payment date. Accordingly, it can be seen that the employer, the non-party, was obligated, in accordance with custom, to uniformly pay a driving allowance of KRW 10,000 per trip whenever workers, including the Plaintiff, drove between Daejeon and Danyang. Furthermore, it is reasonable to view this driving allowance not as money of the nature of reimbursement of actual expenses intended to compensate for additional costs incurred due to long-distance driving, but rather as money paid as remuneration for labor.

Nevertheless, the court below, contrary to this, determined that the disposition in this case, which excluded the driving allowance received by the Plaintiff from the total amount of wages forming the basis for calculating average wages on the ground that, in light of the fact that whether or not such allowance was paid and the amount paid differed depending on the number of trips and the distance traveled, it was difficult to view its substance as anything other than reimbursement of actual expenses and thus not as payment for remuneration of labor, was lawful. This determination constitutes a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the total amount of wages forming the basis for calculating average wages. The ground of appeal pointing this out is well-founded.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below, and it is so decided by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices as set forth in the Order.

Justice Lee Im-su (Presiding Justice), Choi Jong-yeong, Jeong Gwi-ho (Justice in Charge), Lee Don-hee

【판결요지】

[1] 평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금총액에는 사용자가 근로의 대상으로 근로자에게 지급하는 일체의 금품으로서, 근로자에게 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고 그 지급에 관하여 단체협약, 취업규칙 등에 의하여 사용자에게 지급의무가 지워져 있으면, 그 명칭 여하를 불문하고 모두 포함되는바, 사용자에게 근로의 대상성이 있는 금품에 대하여 그 지급의무가 있다는 것은 그 지급 여부를 사용자가 임의적으로 결정할 수 없다는 것을 의미하는 것이고, 그 지급의무의 발생근거는 단체협약이나 취업규칙, 급여규정, 근로계약에 의한 것이든 그 금품의 지급이 사용자의 방침이나, 관행에 따라 계속적으로 이루어져 노사간에 그 지급이 당연한 것으로 여겨질 정도의 관례가 형성된 경우처럼 노동관행에 의한 것이든 무방하다.

[2] 1회당 금 10,000원씩이라는 지급기준을 정하여 두고 운행횟수에 비례하여 계산한 금액을 차량운행수당으로 매월 임금지급일에 계속적·정기적으로 지급하여 온 경우, 사용자는 관례에 의하여 1회당 금 10,000원씩의 운행수당을 일률적으로 지급하여야 할 의무가 있었다고 할 것이고, 아울러 이러한 운행수당은 장거리 운행으로 인하여 추가로 소요되는 비용을 보전하여 주려는 실비변상적 성격의 금원이라기 보다는 근로의 대상으로 지급된 것이라고 봄이 상당하다는 이유로, 이를 평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금총액에 산입하지 아니한 원심판결을 파기한 사례.

【참조조문】

[1] 구 근로기준법(1996. 12. 31. 법률 제5245호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제18조, 제19조

[2] 구 근로기준법(1996. 12. 31. 법률 제5245호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제18조, 제19조

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 1990. 12. 7. 선고 90다카19647 판결(공1991, 432), 대법원 1991. 1. 15. 선고 90다6170 판결(공1991, 735), 대법원 1995. 5. 12. 선고 94다55934 판결(공1995상, 2111), 대법원 1996. 5. 14. 선고 95다19256 판결(공1996하, 1837) /[2] 대법원 1988. 3. 22. 선고 87다카570 판결(공1988, 673), 대법원 1993. 12. 24. 선고 91다36192 판결(공1994상, 494), 대법원 1996. 9. 10. 선고 95누17410 판결(공1996하, 3040)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,304자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고,상고인】 원고

【피고,피상고인】 근로복지공단

【원심판결】 대전고법 1996. 8. 30. 선고 95구2720 판결

【주문】

원심판결을 파기하고 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다.

【이유】 상고이유를 본다.

평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금총액에는 사용자가 근로의 대상으로 근로자에게 지급하는 일체의 금품으로서, 근로자에게 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고 그 지급에 관하여 단체협약, 취업규칙 등에 의하여 사용자에게 지급의무가 지워져 있으면, 그 명칭 여하를 불문하고 모두 포함된다 할 것이고( 대법원 1990. 12. 7. 선고 90다카19647 판결 참조), 또한 사용자에게 근로의 대상성이 있는 금품에 대하여 그 지급의무가 있다는 것은 그 지급 여부를 사용자가 임의적으로 결정할 수 없다는 것을 의미하는 것이고, 그 지급의무의 발생근거는 단체협약이나 취업규칙, 급여규정, 근로계약에 의한 것이든 그 금품의 지급이 사용자의 방침이나( 대법원 1991. 1. 15. 선고 90다6170 판결 참조), 관행에 따라 계속적으로 이루어져 노사간에 그 지급이 당연한 것으로 여겨질 정도의 관례가 형성된 경우처럼 노동관행에 의한 것이든 무방하다 할 것이다.

원심이 인정한 사실에 의하면, 원심판시의 운행수당은 1회당 금 10,000원이라는 지급기준을 정하여 두고 대전­단양 간의 운행횟수에 비례하여 계산한 금액을 매월 임금지급일에 계속적·정기적으로 지급된 것임을 알 수 있으므로, 사용자인 소외인은 원고를 비롯한 근로자들이 대전­단양 간을 운행할 경우, 관례에 의하여 1회당 금 10,000원씩의 운행수당을 일률적으로 지급하여야 할 의무가 있었다고 할 것이고, 아울러 이러한 운행수당은 장거리 운행으로 인하여 추가로 소요되는 비용을 보전하여 주려는 실비변상적 성격의 금원이라기 보다는 근로의 대상으로 지급된 것이라고 봄이 타당하다 할 것이다.

그럼에도 불구하고, 원심이 이와 달리 원고가 지급받은 위 운행수당은 운행횟수와 운행거리에 따라 지급 여부 및 지급액이 다른 점에 비추어 그 실질이 실비변상적인 것으로서 근로의 대상으로 지급된 것이라고 보기 어렵다는 이유로 이를 평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금총액에 산입시키지 아니한 이 사건 처분이 적법하다고 판단한 것은 평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금총액에 관한 법리를 오해한 것이라 할 것이다. 이 점을 지적하는 상고는 이유 있다.

그러므로 원심판결을 파기하고 사건을 원심법원에 환송하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이임수(재판장) 최종영 정귀호(주심) 이돈희

Related statutes

근로기준법 제2조근로기준법 제19조

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2015두36157 · 대법원 2018-10-12
Revocation of Disposition Denying Correction of Average Wage
#2
2022구단62652 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
평균임금정정불승인및보험급여차액부지급처분
#3
2008구단3534 · 서울행정법원 0001-01-01
평균임금결정처분취소
#4
2010두19461 · 대법원 2011-06-10
Revocation of Disapproval of Application to Correct Average
#5
2016누61985 · 서울고등법원 0001-01-01
평균임금정정불승인처분취소등

Cases citing this decision

2015두36157 · 대법원 2018-10-12
Revocation of Disposition Denying Correction of Average Wage
2004다13755 · 대법원 2005-10-13
Wages
2004다13762 · 대법원 2005-10-13
Wages
2004다41217 · 대법원 2005-09-09
Wages Dispute Case
2000다18127 · 대법원 2002-05-31
Wage Claim 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.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)