대법원 2025다214123 — Wages (임금)

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

Under Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (근로기준법, before it was amended by Act No. 20520 on October 22, 2024; hereinafter the same) and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법 시행령, before it was amended by Presidential Decree No. 35436 on April 8, 2025; hereinafter the same), where an employer fails, within 14 days from the date on which the cause for payment arises, to pay "all or part of the wages that must be paid pursuant to Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act and the benefits (limited to lump-sum payments) under Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act (근로자퇴직급여 보장법; hereinafter the "Retirement Benefit Security Act")," the employer must, in principle, pay delay interest at the rate of 20% per annum for the number of days of delay from the day following that date until the date of actual payment.

The above provisions apply to wages that must be paid pursuant to Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act where an employee has died or retired, and to lump-sum payments made under the retirement benefit scheme among the benefits under Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Retirement Benefit Security Act. However, considering that the retirement benefit scheme is basically a system, like Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act, designed to pay benefits to retiring employees (Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 4(1) of the Retirement Benefit Security Act), it is difficult to conclude that an interim settlement retirement allowance paid to an employee before retirement pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Retirement Benefit Security Act constitutes a lump-sum payment made under the retirement benefit scheme to which Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act applies.

Moreover, the above provisions presuppose that, upon termination of the employment relationship due to the employee's retirement or otherwise, the employer is obligated to pay wages, retirement allowances, and other lump-sum payments under the retirement benefit scheme within 14 days from the date on which the cause for payment arises (Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 9(1), Article 17(2) and (3) of the Retirement Benefit Security Act), and are intended to induce compliance with that settlement obligation by imposing economic sanctions on employers who fail to fulfill it. However, unlike retirement allowances and the like, the Retirement Benefit Security Act does not contain a provision imposing a settlement obligation within 14 days with respect to interim settlement retirement allowances, and Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act cannot be interpreted as newly creating such a settlement obligation for interim settlement retirement allowances. An interim settlement retirement allowance is paid only where certain grounds exist, such as the purchase of a house, pursuant to an agreement on interim settlement between the employee and the employer; if economic sanctions were imposed on grounds of delay in such payment, this could weaken the employer's incentive to consent to an employee's request for interim settlement, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the interim settlement retirement allowance system.

Taking these circumstances comprehensively into account, Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act must be held inapplicable when calculating delay damages on an interim settlement retirement allowance paid to an employee during his or her employment.

[Order]

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

[Reasoning] The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the first ground of appeal
The court below determined, for the reasons stated in its judgment, that the remote-area work allowance paid by the defendant to Plaintiff 1 constituted money paid to partially reimburse the additional expenses incurred as a result of performing duties in a special working environment, and thus fell under the category of an expense-reimbursement-type or welfare-type payment, and could not be regarded as wages paid as consideration for labor.
Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, this determination by the court below is justified, and there is no error therein of misapprehending the legal principles concerning wages, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the second ground of appeal
The court below determined, for the reasons stated in its judgment, that since Grade 5 port operation position employees are expected to be promoted in the future to Grade 4 or higher, such position does not constitute a "social status," and there was no material from which it could be ascertained whether the scope of duties, responsibilities, and authority of Grade 5 port operation position employees and those of Grade 4 or higher were essentially identical; accordingly, the court below rejected Plaintiff 1's argument that the defendant's payment of holiday bonuses to Grade 5 port operation position employees at a different calculation base amount from that applied to Grade 4 or higher constituted a violation of the Rules of Employment (취업규칙) or discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 11 of the Constitution (헌법) and Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법).
Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the determination of the court below may be accepted, and there is no error therein of misapprehending the legal principles concerning the interpretation of the Rules of Employment or discriminatory treatment under Article 11 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. As to the third ground of appeal
A. Relevant Legal Principles
Pursuant to Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (Labor Standards Act, before being amended by Act No. 20520 on October 22, 2024; the same shall apply hereinafter) and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act (Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, before being amended by Presidential Decree No. 35436 on April 8, 2025; the same shall apply hereinafter), where an employer fails to pay "all or part of the wages payable under Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act and the benefits under Article 2, Subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Guarantee of Employees' Retirement Benefits (근로자퇴직급여 보장법; hereinafter referred to as the "Retirement Benefit Guarantee Act") (limited to lump-sum payments)" within 14 days from the date the cause for payment arose, the employer must, in principle, pay delay interest at an annual rate of 20% for the period of delay from the day following that date until the date of payment.
The above provisions apply to wages that must be paid under Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act when an employee dies or retires, and to lump-sum payments made under a retirement benefit scheme among the benefits under Article 2, Subparagraph 5 of the Retirement Benefit Guarantee Act. However, considering that the retirement benefit scheme is basically a system for paying benefits to retiring employees, as is Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act (Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 4(1) of the Retirement Benefit Guarantee Act), it is difficult to conclude that an interim settlement retirement allowance paid before an employee's retirement pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Retirement Benefit Guarantee Act constitutes a lump-sum payment made under a retirement benefit scheme to which Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act applies.
Furthermore, the above provisions presuppose that, upon termination of the employment relationship due to an employee's retirement or otherwise, the employer has an obligation to pay wages and lump-sum payments under the retirement benefit scheme, such as retirement allowances, within 14 days from the time the cause for payment arises (Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 9(1), Article 17(2) and (3) of the Retirement Benefit Guarantee Act), and their purpose is to induce compliance with such settlement obligation by imposing economic sanctions on an employer who fails to perform it. However, unlike retirement allowances, the Retirement Benefit Guarantee Act does not contain a provision imposing a settlement obligation within 14 days with respect to interim settlement retirement allowances, and Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act cannot be construed as newly creating such a settlement obligation with respect to interim settlement retirement allowances. An interim settlement retirement allowance is paid only where certain grounds exist, such as the purchase of a house, pursuant to an agreement between the employee and the employer for interim settlement; if economic sanctions were imposed on grounds of delay in such payment, this could weaken the employer's incentive to consent to an employee's request for interim settlement, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the interim settlement of retirement allowance system.
Comprehensively considering these circumstances, it must be held that Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act do not apply in calculating delay damages on an interim settlement retirement allowance paid to an employee while still employed.
B. Determination
Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles set forth above, the determination of the court below that the interest rate prescribed in Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act does not apply to an interim settlement retirement allowance paid to an employee while still employed is justified. There is no error therein of misapprehending the legal principles concerning the rate of delay damages on an interim settlement retirement allowance, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
4. Conclusion
All appeals are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justice Roh Kyung-pil (Presiding Justice), Lee Heung-gu (Justice in charge), Oh Seok-jun, Lee Suk-yeon

【판결요지】

구 근로기준법(2024. 10. 22. 법률 제20520호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령(2025. 4. 8. 대통령령 제35436호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제17조에 따르면, 사용자는 "근로기준법 제36조에 따라 지급하여야 하는 임금 및 근로자퇴직급여 보장법(이하 ‘퇴직급여법’이라 한다) 제2조 제5호에 따른 급여(일시금만 해당된다)의 전부 또는 일부"를 그 지급 사유가 발생한 날부터 14일 이내에 지급하지 아니한 경우, 그다음 날부터 지급하는 날까지의 지연일수에 대하여 연 20%의 비율에 의한 지연이자를 지급하여야 함이 원칙이다.

위 각 규정은 근로기준법 제36조에 따라 근로자가 사망 또는 퇴직한 경우 지급되어야 하는 임금 및 퇴직급여법 제2조 제5호에 따른 급여 중 퇴직급여제도에 의하여 지급되는 일시금에 적용된다. 그런데 퇴직급여제도는 기본적으로 근로기준법 제36조와 같이 퇴직하는 근로자에게 급여를 지급하기 위한 제도인 점(근로기준법 제34조, 퇴직급여법 제4조 제1항)을 감안하면, 퇴직급여법 제8조 제2항에 따라 근로자의 퇴직 전에 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금이 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항의 적용 대상인 퇴직급여제도에 의하여 지급되는 일시금에 해당한다고 단정하기 어렵다.

또한 위 각 규정은 근로자의 퇴직 등으로 근로관계가 종료될 경우 사용자가 지급 사유가 발생한 때로부터 14일 이내에 임금 및 퇴직금 등 퇴직급여제도에 따른 일시금을 지급하여야 할 의무가 있음을 전제로(근로기준법 제36조, 퇴직급여법 제9조 제1항, 제17조 제2항, 제3항), 그 청산의무를 불이행한 사용자에 대하여 경제적 제재를 가함으로써 해당 의무의 이행을 유도함에 취지가 있다. 그런데 퇴직급여법은 중간정산 퇴직금에 대하여는 퇴직금 등과 달리 14일 이내의 청산의무에 관한 규정을 두지 않았고, 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항이 중간정산 퇴직금에 대하여 그와 같은 청산의무를 새로이 창설하는 취지의 규정이라고 볼 수도 없다. 중간정산 퇴직금은 주택구입 등 일정한 사유가 있는 경우에 한하여 근로자와 사용자의 중간정산 합의에 따라 지급되는데, 그 지연 지급을 사유로 경제적 제재를 가한다면, 사용자가 근로자의 중간정산 요구를 승낙할 유인을 약화시켜 퇴직금 중간정산제도의 실효성을 저해할 우려도 있다.

이러한 사정들을 종합적으로 고려하면, 근로자의 재직 중 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금에 대한 지연손해금을 계산할 때에는 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령 제17조는 적용되지 아니한다고 보아야 한다.

【참조조문】

구 근로기준법(2024. 10. 22. 법률 제20520호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령(2025. 4. 8. 대통령령 제35436호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조, 근로기준법 제34조, 제36조, 근로자퇴직급여 보장법 제2조 제5호, 제4조 제1항, 제8조 제2항, 제9조 제1항, 제17조 제2항, 제3항

【주문】·【이유】 전문 2,503자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 상고인】 원고 1 외 3인 (소송대리인 법무법인 민주 담당변호사 김경돈 외 16인)

【피고, 피상고인】 주식회사 ○○ (소송대리인 법무법인(유한) 태평양 담당변호사 김상민 외 5인)

【원심판결】 서울고법 2025. 5. 30. 선고 2023나2058221 판결

【주 문】

상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 판단한다.

1. 제1 상고이유에 대하여

원심은 판시와 같은 이유로, 피고가 원고 1에게 지급한 외지근무보조비는 특수한 근무 환경에서 직무를 수행함으로 말미암아 추가로 소요되는 비용을 일부 변상하기 위하여 지급되는 실비변상적, 복리후생적 금원에 해당하므로, 근로의 대가로 지급되는 임금이라고 볼 수 없다고 판단하였다.

원심판결 이유를 관련 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 이러한 원심의 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유 주장과 같이 임금에 관한 법리를 오해한 잘못이 없다.

2. 제2 상고이유에 대하여

원심은 판시와 같은 이유로, 항만운영직 5급은 장차 4급 이상으로 승진할 것이 예정되어 있어 ‘사회적 신분’에 해당하지 않고, 항만운영직 5급과 4급 이상의 업무 범위나 책임, 권한 등이 본질적으로 동일한지를 알 수 있는 자료도 없다고 보아, 피고가 항만운영직 5급에 대하여 4급 이상과 그 산정 기준액을 달리하여 명절상여금을 지급한 것이 취업규칙의 위반이라거나, 헌법 제11조, 근로기준법 제6조에 위배된 차별적 처우에 해당한다는 원고 1의 주장을 배척하였다.

원심판결 이유를 관련 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심의 판단을 수긍할 수 있고, 거기에 상고이유 주장과 같이 취업규칙의 해석이나 헌법 제11조, 근로기준법 제6조의 차별 처우에 관한 법리 등을 오해한 잘못이 없다.

3. 제3 상고이유에 대하여

가. 관련 법리

구 근로기준법(2024. 10. 22. 법률 제20520호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령(2025. 4. 8. 대통령령 제35436호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제17조에 따르면, 사용자는 "근로기준법 제36조에 따라 지급하여야 하는 임금 및 「근로자퇴직급여 보장법」(이하 ‘퇴직급여법’이라 한다) 제2조 제5호에 따른 급여(일시금만 해당된다)의 전부 또는 일부"를 그 지급 사유가 발생한 날부터 14일 이내에 지급하지 아니한 경우, 그다음 날부터 지급하는 날까지의 지연일수에 대하여 연 20%의 비율에 의한 지연이자를 지급하여야 함이 원칙이다.

나. 판단

원심판결 이유를 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이 근로자의 재직 중 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금에 대하여 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항이 정한 이율이 적용되지 않는다고 판단한 것은 정당하다. 거기에 상고이유 주장과 같이 중간정산 퇴직금의 지연손해금률에 관한 법리를 오해한 잘못이 없다.

4. 결론

상고를 모두 기각하고 상고비용은 패소자가 부담하도록 하여, 관여 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 노경필(재판장) 이흥구(주심) 오석준 이숙연

Wages (임금)임금

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[Order]

【판결요지】

【참조조문】

Related statutes

Similar cases

Related tools & guides