Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 94다26615 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/1607 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 94다26615

Unpaid Wages (체불임금) Case체불임금

Decided1994. 10. 28. Court대법원Employer won
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 family allowances and long-service allowances paid by a company should be included in the calculation of 'ordinary wages' (통상임금). The Supreme Court (대법원) ruled that these allowances are not part of ordinary wages because they are paid regardless of the actual quantity or quality of work performed. As a result, the worker's appeal was dismissed, and the employer prevailed.

Key takeaways
  • CaseIncident: A worker demanded that unpaid wages be recalculated by including family allowances and long-service allowances as part of ordinary wages.
  • OutcomeResult: The Supreme Court (대법원) ruled that these allowances are not included in ordinary wages because they are unrelated to the actual quantity or quality of work performed.
  • LessonLesson: When calculating ordinary wages, employers and workers should exclude family allowances and benevolent long-service allowances, including only fixed payments regularly given as direct compensation for actual work performed.
Issues
  • Whether family allowances and long-service allowances should be included in ordinary wages (통상임금)
  • Definition and scope of ordinary wages (통상임금)
Key reasoning

Ordinary wages (통상임금) must be fixed payments that are regularly and uniformly paid as direct compensation for the quantity and quality of work performed. Family allowances are paid based on whether an employee has dependents, not based on work performance, and thus fail to meet this standard. Similarly, long-service allowances are paid as a benevolent incentive to reward employees for lengthy tenure, rather than as compensation tied to actual work output. Since neither allowance reflects the quantity or quality of labor performed, both were excluded from the calculation of ordinary wages.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] "Ordinary wages" as prescribed in Article 19(2) of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) and Article 31(1) of its Enforcement Decree (근로기준법시행령) refers to the hourly wage amount, daily wage amount, weekly wage amount, monthly wage amount, or piece-rate amount that is determined to be paid regularly and uniformly to a worker for prescribed work or total work. This means a fixed wage that is determined to be paid regularly and uniformly during one wage calculation period as consideration for work related to the quantity and quality of labor, regardless of the actual number of working days or the amount actually received. Therefore, payments that are made merely as a matter of grace or on an irregular basis, or that are paid to only a portion of workers based on factors unrelated to the quantity and quality of labor, must be excluded from the calculation of ordinary wages.

[2] If the family allowance paid by a company is paid only to workers who have a spouse, children, or cohabiting parents, this is paid regardless of the quantity or quality of labor. If the long-service allowance is paid only to workers who have served for three years or more, in an amount determined according to the length of service, this constitutes an allowance of a gracious nature intended to favor long-serving employees, and is paid without regard to the quality of labor. Therefore, such family allowance and long-service allowance cannot be included within the scope of ordinary wages.

Full text (English, AI translation) 2,702 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellant (Selected Party)] Plaintiff (Selected Party)
[Defendant, Appellee] Cheongbo Industrial Co., Ltd., Litigation Representatives Attorney Yoon Young-hak and 2 others
[Judgment Below] Incheon District Court, Judgment rendered April 15, 1994, Case No. 93Na5185

[Order]

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

[Reasoning]

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Ordinary wages as referred to in Article 19, Paragraph 2 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) and Article 31, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act mean the hourly wage amount, daily wage amount, weekly wage amount, monthly wage amount, or piece-rate wage amount that has been determined to be paid to the worker regularly and uniformly for the prescribed work or total work. This refers to fixed wages that are determined to be paid regularly and uniformly during one wage calculation period, as consideration for labor related to the quantity and quality of work, regardless of the actual number of days worked or the amount actually received. Therefore, amounts that are simply paid on a discretionary or irregular basis, or that are paid to only some workers based on factors unrelated to the quantity and quality of labor, must be excluded from the calculation of ordinary wages (see this Court's Judgments of November 9, 1990, Case No. 90Daka6948; December 26, 1990, Case No. 90Daka12493; February 14, 1992, Case No. 91Da17955; May 22, 1992, Case No. 92Da7306, etc.).

In light of the record in this case, the family allowance paid by the Defendant company is paid only to workers who have a spouse, children, or parents living together with them, and is thus paid regardless of the quantity or quality of labor. The long-service allowance is paid only to workers who have served for three years or more, in a fixed amount determined according to the length of service, and this is a discretionary allowance in nature intended to give preferential treatment to long-serving employees, paid without regard to the quality of labor. Therefore, the above family allowance and long-service allowance cannot be included within the scope of ordinary wages.

The judgment below, which is to the same effect, is justified, and it cannot be said that there is any error of misapprehension of law as argued in the grounds of appeal. The argument 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, by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justice Lee Yong-hoon (Presiding Justice), Park Man-ho, Park Jun-seo (Justice in Charge), Kim Hyung-seon

【판결요지】

가. 근로기준법 제19조 제2항과 같은법시행령 제31조 제1항 소정의 통상임금이란 근로자에게 정기적, 일률적으로 소정 근로 또는 총근로에 대하여 지급하기로 정하여진 시간급금액, 일급금액, 주급금액, 월급금액 또는 도급금액을 말하며, 이는 근로의 양 및 질에 관계되는 근로의 대가로서 실제 근무일수나 수령액에 구애됨이 없이 정기적, 일률적으로 1임금산정기간에 지급하기로 정하여진 고정급임금을 의미하므로, 단순히 은혜적, 부정기적으로 지급되는 것이거나 근로의 양 및 질과는 무관한 요인에 따라 근로자의 일부에 대하여 지급되는 것은 통상임금의 산정에서 제외되어야 한다.

나. 회사에서 지급하는 가족수당이 배우자, 자녀, 동거하는 부모가 있는 근로자에게만 지급되고 있는 것이라면 이는 근로의 양이나 질에 무관하게 지급되는 것이고, 근속수당이 3년 이상 근속한 근로자에게만 근속한 기간에 따라 정하여 놓은 금액을 지급하는 것이라면 이는 장기근속자를 우대하기 위한 은혜적 성격의 수당으로서 근로의 질과는 관계가 없이 지급되는 것이라고 할 것이므로, 그 가족수당 및 근속수당은 통상임금의 범위에 포함시킬 수 없다.

【참조조문】

근로기준법 제9조 제2항, 근로기준법시행령 제31조 제1항

【참조판례】

가.나. 대법원 1992.5.22. 선고 92다7306 판결(공1992,1983) / 가. 대법원 1990.11.9. 선고 90다카6948 판결(공1991,37), 1990.12.26. 선고 90다카12493 판결(공1991,618)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,025자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 상고인(선정당사자)】 원고(선정당사자)

【피고, 피상고인】 청보산업주식회사 소송대리인 변호사 윤영학 외 2인

【원심판결】 인천지방법원 1994.4.15. 선고 93나5185 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 본다.

근로기준법 제19조 제2항과 같은 법 시행령 제31조 제1항 소정의 통상임금이란 근로자에게 정기적, 일률적으로 소정 근로 또는 총근로에 대하여 지급하기로 정하여진 시간급금액, 일급금액, 주급금액, 월급금액 또는 도급금액을 말하며, 이는 근로의 양 및 질에 관계되는 근로의 대가로서 실제 근무일수나 수령액에 구애됨이 없이 정기적, 일률적으로 1임금산정기간에 지급하기로 정하여진 고정급임금을 의미하므로, 단순히 은혜적, 부정기적으로 지급되는 것이거나 근로의 양 및 질과는 무관한 요인에 따라 근로자의 일부에 대하여 지급되는 것은 통상임금의 산정에서 제외되어야 할 것인 바(당원 1990.11.9. 선고 90다카6948 판결; 1990.12.26. 선고 90다카12493 판결; 1992.2.14. 선고 91다17955 판결; 1992.5.22. 선고 92다7306 판결 등 참조), 이 사건 기록에 비추어 보면, 피고 회사에서 지급하는 가족수당은 배우자, 자녀, 동거하는 부모가 있는 근로자에게만 지급되고 있는 것으로 근로의 양이나 질에 무관하게 지급되는 것이고, 근속수당은 3년 이상 근속한 근로자에게만 근속한 기간에 따라 정하여 놓은 금액을 지급하는 것으로 이는 장기근속자를 우대하기 위한 은혜적 성격의 수당으로서 근로의 질과는 관계가 없이 지급되는 것이라고 할 것이므로, 위 가족수당 및 근속수당은 통상임금의 범위에 포함시킬 수 없다고 할 것이다.

같은 취지의 원심판결은 정당하고 거기에 소론과 같은 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다. 논지는 이유 없다.

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

대법관 이용훈(재판장) 박만호 박준서(주심) 김형선

Related statutes

근로기준법 제19조 제2항근로기준법시행령 제31조 제1항

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2003다10650 · 대법원 2003-04-22
Wages, etc. (임금등)
#2
2008가합10118 · 수원지방법원 성남지원 2009-07-10
Wages, etc.
#3
90다카14758 · 대법원 1991-06-28
Wages (임금) Case
#4
91다5501 · 대법원 1992-07-14
Unpaid Wages
#5
92다7306 · 대법원 1992-05-22
Wages (Ordinary Wage Dispute)

Cases citing this decision

2003다10650 · 대법원 2003-04-22
Wages, etc. (임금등)
95다19256 · 대법원 1996-05-14
Unpaid Severance Pay (미지급퇴직금)
95다2227 · 대법원 1996-05-10
Wages (임금) Case
95다56767 · 대법원 1996-03-22
Wages
94다19501 · 대법원 1996-02-09
Wage Claim Case (노임)

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)