Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 96다45399 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/2432 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 96다45399

Severance Pay and Other Claims퇴직금등

Decided1997. 07. 11. Court대법원Case remanded (파기환송) - Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings, ruling in favor of the employer's position on the allowance claims while directing recalculation of severance pay under the amended regulation.
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 involved special guard police (청원경찰, commissioned security guards employed under police-like authority) at the Korea Expressway Corporation who sued their employer for unpaid overtime and holiday work allowances, as well as severance pay (퇴직금). The Supreme Court held that guards whose work had been officially approved by the Ministry of Labor as 'monitoring and intermittent work' (감시단속적 근로) were not entitled to statutory overtime or holiday pay, and that the amended severance pay regulation—applicable to the majority of employees—should govern their severance pay calculation once the ban on differential severance pay systems (퇴직금차등제도) took effect.

Key takeaways
  • CaseIncident: Special guard police at the Korea Expressway Corporation sued their employer to claim unpaid overtime/holiday work allowances and severance pay.
  • OutcomeResult: The court ruled that guards approved for monitoring and intermittent work were not entitled to various work allowances, and that the amended severance pay regulation must be applied.
  • LessonLesson: Once an employer obtains approval for monitoring and intermittent work status, the standard working-hour rules no longer apply, so employees cannot claim overtime pay — workers should always check whether such approval has been granted for their position.
Issues
  • Whether an employer is obligated to pay overtime and holiday work allowances to special guard police (청원경찰) whose work has received governmental approval as monitoring and intermittent work
  • Which severance pay regulation should apply after the legal prohibition on differential severance pay systems (퇴직금차등제도) takes effect
  • How severance pay should be calculated when the applicable severance pay regulation changes during an employee's period of continuous service
  • How severance pay should be calculated for special-status (byeoljeong-jik) employees
Key reasoning

Under the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), when an employer obtains the Ministry of Labor's approval designating certain work as 'monitoring and intermittent work,' the standard working-hour provisions of the Act are excluded, meaning employers have no obligation to pay overtime or holiday work allowances for such approved positions. Separately, once the legal ban on maintaining different severance pay systems for different groups of employees (퇴직금차등제도 금지) came into force, only the severance pay regulation applicable to the largest group of employees carries binding legal effect as a normative rule (법규적 효력). Therefore, when calculating severance pay for employees whose tenure spans a period before and after such regulatory changes, the amended regulation—not the older, employee-specific rule—must be applied to determine the final severance pay amount, including for special (byeoljeong-jik) employees.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] Under Article 2 of the former Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) (before its full enactment by Act No. 5309 on March 13, 1997), each working condition prescribed by the Act shall be deemed the minimum standard; nevertheless, where work constitutes watchman or intermittent labor and has been approved by the Minister of Labor, the provisions of the same Act concerning working hours, holidays, and rest periods are excluded from application pursuant to Article 49 of the same Act. Where the Korea Highway Corporation obtained approval from the Minister of Labor for the exclusion of the application of the provisions concerning working hours, holidays, and rest periods on the ground that the duties of alternate-day workers, including special guards, constitute watchman or intermittent labor, and renewed such approval, then even if the Rules for Management of Commissioned and Temporary Employees (촉탁·임시고원관리예규) or the rules of employment provide for matters concerning working hours, holidays, and rest periods, there is no obligation to pay overtime allowance or holiday work allowance in accordance therewith.

[2] Even if an employer, in changing the rules of employment to the disadvantage of employees, has not obtained the consent of the employees through a collective decision-making method, since the authority to prepare and amend the rules of employment lies with the employer, the rules of employment currently having legal normative effect are the amended rules of employment; provided, however, that with respect to existing employees whose vested interests would be infringed, the previous rules of employment apply. Accordingly, where, pursuant to Article 28(2) and the Addenda, Paragraph 2, of the former Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) (as amended by Act No. 3349 on December 31, 1980), which prohibits a differential retirement allowance system, the retirement allowance system applicable to the largest group of employees within the relevant business must be applied from April 1, 1981, if the retirement allowance provisions applicable to the largest group of employees had been changed to the disadvantage of the employees without obtaining the consent of the employees through a collective decision-making method, then, although the pre-amendment retirement allowance provisions apply, for the protection of vested interests, to those employees belonging to the largest group of employees who joined before the retirement allowance provisions were changed, it must be deemed that, for employees not belonging to the largest group of employees, the amended retirement allowance provisions, which have legal normative effect over the largest group of employees, apply, unless doing so would infringe upon vested interests.

[3] A specific right to claim a retirement allowance arises upon the fact of retirement, which marks the end of continuous service as a requirement; therefore, if the retirement allowance provisions were changed by the employer in the middle of a continuous period of service, the amended retirement allowance provisions must, in principle, be applied not only to the period of service after the change but also to the period of service before the change, unless doing so infringes upon the employee's vested interests. This same legal principle applies equally where the retirement allowance provisions were not changed by the employer but where, pursuant to the provisions of the former Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) (as amended by Act No. 3349 on December 31, 1980), the differential retirement allowance system was prohibited from April 1, 1981, and the retirement allowance system applicable to the largest group of employees within the relevant business came to apply to all employees.

[4] Where the retirement allowance provisions applicable to general-service employees were changed disadvantageously without the consent of the employee group, and the provision prohibiting the differential retirement allowance system subsequently took effect, the retirement allowance provisions having legal normative effect over general-service employees as of April 1, 1981, the date on which Article 28(2) of the former Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) (as amended by Act No. 3349 on December 31, 1980) took effect, are not the pre-amendment retirement allowance provisions but the amended retirement allowance provisions. Therefore, in calculating the retirement allowance for a special-service employee who joined before the prohibition of the differential retirement allowance system and retired thereafter, one must compare the number of general-service employees and special-service employees as of April 1, 1981, and if general-service employees constitute the majority, the amended retirement allowance provisions should, in principle, apply; provided, however, that for the period of service up to March 31, 1981, for the protection of vested interests, the provisions more favorable to the special-service employee—comparing the application of the Rules for Management of Commissioned and Temporary Employees (촉탁·임시고원관리예규) applicable to special-service employees against the application of the amended retirement allowance provisions—must be applied.

Full text (English, AI translation) 16,509 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellee]

[Plaintiff (Appellant and Appellee)]

[Defendant (Appellee and Appellant)] Korea Expressway Corporation (Attorneys Lee Young-jun and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant)

[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Judgment 95Na15300 decided August 30, 1996

[Order]

The part of the judgment below against the Defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The appeals by Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, Plaintiff 6, Plaintiff 7, and Plaintiff 8 are all dismissed. The costs of the appeal with respect to the dismissed portion shall be borne by the above Plaintiffs.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, Plaintiff 6, Plaintiff 7, and Plaintiff 8 (hereinafter referred to as "the above Plaintiffs")

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above Plaintiffs' respective claims for allowances on the ground that, since the alternate-day employment contracts between Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, and the deceased Non-party 1, the decedent of Plaintiff 6, Plaintiff 7, and Plaintiff 8 (hereinafter Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, and the deceased Non-party 1 are collectively referred to as "Plaintiff 3 and others"), on the one hand, and the Defendant Corporation, on the other hand, were lawfully formed and validly continued, the wages received by Plaintiff 3 and others from the Defendant Corporation already included overtime allowance, holiday work allowance, and night work allowance.

According to the record, Plaintiff 3 joined the Defendant Corporation as a specially-designated employee, namely a commissioned police guard (청원경찰), on May 10, 1977; Plaintiff 4 on April 14, 1977; Plaintiff 5 on April 21, 1977; and the deceased Non-party 1 on July 22, 1980, and worked until their respective retirements—Plaintiff 3 on September 18, 1993; Plaintiff 4 on October 24, 1993; Plaintiff 5 on October 22, 1993; and the deceased Non-party 1 on November 2, 1992. From the time of their employment until their retirement, Plaintiff 3 and others worked in groups of three on a 24-hour alternate-day shift system, performing duties such as inspection of overloaded vehicles (it appears that fewer than 10 vehicles per day were caught for overloading), guarding of major facilities, and patrolling. It can further be ascertained that under the Regulations on the Management of Commissioned and Temporary Employees (촉탁·임시고용원관리예규), enacted on October 1, 1975 and in force at the time Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, and Plaintiff 5 were employed, commissioned police guards were classified as a type of temporary employee, temporary employees were employed on a daily wage basis, and it was provided that, in addition to the regular 8 hours per day, an additional 50% of the hourly basic wage would be paid for overtime work, night work, or holiday work. Under the Regulations on the Management of Commissioned Employees, Temporary Employees, and Commissioned Police Guards (촉탁ㆍ고원및청원경찰관리예규, hereinafter the "Specially-Designated Employee Management Regulations"), enacted on January 1, 1983, matters concerning the working hours, holidays, leave, and remuneration of specially-designated employees were to be governed mutatis mutandis by the Rules of Employment and Remuneration Regulations applicable to regular employees. Furthermore, it can be seen that under the Defendant Corporation's Rules of Employment and Remuneration Regulations applicable to regular employees, regular employees were likewise classified, depending on the nature of their duties, into special-duty workers who worked on a three-shift or alternate-day basis and ordinary workers who did not; while the general rule was that employees' working hours were 8 hours per day and 44 hours per week, special-duty workers were to work on a three-shift basis or a 24-hour alternate-day basis, and allowances for employees' overtime, holiday, and night work were to be paid in accordance with the Remuneration Regulations.

However, under Article 2 of the former Labor Standards Act (before amendment by Act No. 5245 of December 31, 1996; hereinafter "the Act"), the working conditions prescribed by the Act are to be regarded as minimum standards; nevertheless, in the case of monitoring or intermittent work for which authorization has been obtained from the Minister of Labor (later changed to approval by the Labor Relations Commission, and then changed again to approval by the Minister of Labor), the statutory provisions concerning working hours, holidays, and rest periods are excluded from application pursuant to Article 49 of the Act. In light of this, even if the Regulations on the Management of Commissioned and Temporary Employees or the Rules of Employment provide for matters such as working hours, holidays, and rest periods, such provisions must be deemed inapplicable to workers who have received authorization from the Minister of Labor for exclusion from the application of the statutory provisions concerning working hours and the like. Meanwhile, according to the record, it can be ascertained that around 1973 the Defendant Corporation obtained authorization from the Minister of Labor for exclusion from the application of the statutory provisions on working hours, holidays, and rest periods under the Act, on the ground that the duties of alternate-day workers including commissioned police guards constituted monitoring or intermittent work, and that this authorization has been renewed since then. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Defendant Corporation is obligated to pay overtime allowance and holiday work allowance to Plaintiff 3 and others pursuant to the Regulations on the Management of Commissioned and Temporary Employees, the Specially-Designated Employee Management Regulations, or the Rules of Employment and Remuneration Regulations, and therefore the above Plaintiffs' claims for overtime allowance and holiday work allowance are without merit.

Furthermore, according to the record, it can be ascertained that the Defendant Corporation, on December 29, 1978, obtained the above authorization on condition that it pay "night work allowance" to alternate-day workers including commissioned police guards (thereafter, it continued to renew and obtain authorization annually, but after 1988 it did not seek renewal of authorization, on the premise that the effect of the previous authorization continued to be maintained), and that, pursuant to the conditions of such authorization, from January 1, 1979 it paid, in addition to the basic wage, night work allowance equivalent to 7 hours per day, and from January 1, 1989 it paid night work allowance equivalent to 8 hours per day; thereafter, as a matter of wage increase, irrespective of actual work performed, it additionally paid, each month, an amount equivalent to 4 hours of overtime work from 1990 and an amount equivalent to 8 hours of night work from 1991. Given these facts, the night work allowance sought by the above Plaintiffs for the period from March 1991 onward must be deemed to have already been paid in full, and therefore the above Plaintiffs' claim for night work allowance is also without merit.

Accordingly, although the reasoning stated by the court below is not appropriate, the conclusion of the court below rejecting the above Plaintiffs' respective claims for allowances is justified, and there is no error of law such as a misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendant's Grounds of Appeal

Even where an employer, in amending the Rules of Employment to the disadvantage of employees, fails to obtain the consent of employees through a method of collective decision-making, since the authority to formulate and amend the Rules of Employment lies with the employer, the Rules of Employment currently having normative effect are the amended Rules of Employment; provided, however, that with respect to existing employees whose vested interests would be infringed, the former Rules of Employment shall apply (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da45165 decided December 22, 1992). Accordingly, where, pursuant to Article 28(2) and the Addendum, Paragraph 2 of the former Labor Standards Act (Act No. 3349 of December 31, 1980), which prohibited differential retirement allowance systems, the retirement allowance system applicable to the largest number of employees within the relevant enterprise must be applied from April 1, 1981, if the retirement allowance provisions applicable to the largest number of employees had been amended to the disadvantage of employees without obtaining the consent of employees through a method of collective decision-making, then, even though the former (pre-amendment) retirement allowance provisions would apply, for the protection of vested interests, to employees who belong to the largest group of employees and who were employed before the retirement allowance provisions were amended, it must be held that, with respect to employees who do not belong to the largest group of employees, the amended retirement allowance provisions, which have normative effect as to the largest group of employees, shall apply, so long as no vested interests are infringed.

Furthermore, since a concrete right to claim retirement allowance arises upon the fact of retirement, which marks the end of continuous employment, as a requirement (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da17754 decided September 14, 1992), if the retirement allowance provisions were amended by the employer during the course of continuous employment, then, in principle, the amended retirement allowance provisions must be applied not only to the period of service after the amendment but also, so long as the employee's vested interests are not infringed, to the period of service before the amendment (see Supreme Court Decision 89Daka15939 decided November 27, 1990), and this same legal principle applies equally even where the retirement allowance provisions were not amended by the employer but, as described above, the differential retirement allowance system was prohibited from April 1, 1981 pursuant to the provisions of the former Labor Standards Act (Act No. 3349 of December 31, 1980) and the retirement allowance system applicable to the largest group of employees within the relevant enterprise came to be applied to all employees (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da32709 decided December 23, 1996).

Examining the present case, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts: Plaintiff 1 joined the Defendant Corporation as a specially-designated employee on January 1, 1975; Plaintiff 2 on February 1, 1979; Plaintiff 3 on May 10, 1977; Plaintiff 4 on April 14, 1977; Plaintiff 5 on April 21, 1977; and the deceased Non-party 1 on July 22, 1980 (hereinafter Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, and the deceased Non-party 1 are collectively referred to as "Plaintiff 1 and others"), and worked until their respective retirements—Plaintiff 1 on December 31, 1993; Plaintiff 2 on March 31, 1993; Plaintiff 3 on September 18, 1993; Plaintiff 4 on October 24, 1993; Plaintiff 5 on October 22, 1993; and the deceased Non-party 1 on November 2, 1992. Even before Plaintiff 1 and others were employed, the Defendant Corporation maintained, for specially-designated employees unlike regular employees, the Regulations on the Management of Commissioned Employees and Temporary Employees, under which a retirement allowance equivalent to one month's average monthly wage was paid for each year of service, whereas for regular employees it maintained the Retirement Benefit Regulations (hereinafter the "pre-amendment retirement allowance provisions"), under which a retirement allowance calculated by multiplying the monthly salary at the time of retirement by a retirement allowance payment rate under a high progressive rate system was paid, with "monthly salary" meaning the average monthly wage. The Defendant Corporation, without obtaining the consent of employees through a method of collective decision-making, amended the retirement allowance provisions applicable to regular employees on January 1, 1981, after Plaintiff 1 and others had already been employed; while maintaining the basic method of calculating the retirement allowance by multiplying the monthly salary by the retirement allowance payment rate, it lowered the progressive rate and limited the concept of "monthly salary" to one-third of the sum of the basic salary and various allowances commonly paid each month (construction allowance, overtime work allowance, holiday work allowance, monthly leave allowance) paid during the final three months immediately preceding retirement, plus 3/12 of the annual leave allowance and bonus allowance paid during the one year immediately preceding retirement (hereinafter the "January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Provisions"), thereby disadvantageously amending the pre-amendment retirement allowance provisions applicable to existing regular employees. Having found these facts, the court below, for the reasons stated in its judgment, calculated the retirement allowance for Plaintiff 1 and others by applying the pre-amendment retirement allowance provisions to their entire period of service.

However, if the facts are as found by the court below, then as of April 1, 1981, when Article 28(2) of the former Labor Standards Act (as amended by Act No. 3349 of December 31, 1980) took effect, the retirement allowance provisions having normative effect with respect to the Defendant Corporation's regular employees were not the pre-amendment retirement allowance provisions but the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Provisions. Therefore, in calculating the retirement allowance for Plaintiff 1 and others, who were employed by the Defendant Corporation as specially-designated employees before the differential retirement allowance system was prohibited and who retired after the differential retirement allowance system was prohibited, one must first compare the number of regular employees and specially-designated employees within the Defendant Corporation as of April 1, 1981, and, if regular employees constitute the majority, in principle apply the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Provisions (provided, however, that according to the record, since the Defendant Corporation's retirement allowance provisions were amended after January 1, 1981 so as to include night work allowance in the monthly salary, the monthly salary serving as the basis for calculating the retirement allowance of Plaintiff 1 and others must include night work allowance); however, with respect to the period of service up to March 31, 1981, for the protection of vested interests, one must compare the result of applying the Regulations on the Management of Commissioned Employees and Temporary Employees applicable to specially-designated employees with the result of applying the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Provisions, and apply whichever provision is more favorable to Plaintiff 1 and others (see this Court's Decision 95Da32709 decided December 23, 1996).

Nevertheless, the court below, for the reasons stated in its judgment, calculated the retirement allowance for Plaintiff 1 and others by applying the pre-amendment retirement allowance provisions to their entire period of service. Accordingly, the judgment below contains an error of law constituting a misapprehension of the legal principles concerning Article 28(2) and Addendum Paragraph 2 of the former Labor Standards Act, newly established by Act No. 3349 of December 31, 1980, and the Defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the Defendant is reversed and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The appeals by Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, Plaintiff 6, Plaintiff 7, and Plaintiff 8 are all dismissed, and the costs of the appeal with respect to the dismissed portion shall be borne by the above Plaintiffs, who are the losing parties. This judgment is rendered in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices as set forth in the Order.

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

【판결요지】

[1] 구 근로기준법(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5309호로 제정되기 전의 것) 제2조에 의하면 법이 정하는 각 근로조건은 최저한의 기준이라 할 것인데 그럼에도 불구하고 감시ㆍ단속적 근로로서 노동부장관의 인가를 받은 경우에는 같은 법 제49조에 의하여 근로시간 및 휴일과 휴게에 관한 법 규정의 적용이 배제되는바, 한국도로공사가 청원경찰을 비롯한 격일제 근로자의 업무가 감시 또는 단속적 근로에 해당한다고 하여 노동부장관으로부터 근로시간과 휴일 및 휴게에 관한 규정의 적용배제에 대한 인가를 받아 이를 갱신하여 온 경우, 비록 촉탁·임시고원관리예규나 취업규칙에서 근로시간과 휴일, 휴게 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다고 하더라도 그에 따른 시간외 근로수당과 휴일 근로수당을 지급할 의무가 없다.

[2] 사용자가 근로자에게 불리하게 취업규칙을 변경함에 있어 근로자의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의를 얻지 아니하였다고 하더라도 취업규칙의 작성ㆍ변경권이 사용자에게 있는 이상 현행의 법규적 효력을 가진 취업규칙은 변경된 취업규칙이고 다만 기득이익이 침해되는 기존 근로자에 대하여는 종전 취업규칙이 적용되므로, 퇴직금차등제도를 금지한 구 근로기준법(1980. 12. 31. 법률 제3349호로 개정된 것) 제28조 제2항 및 부칙 제2항에 의하여 1981. 4. 1.부터 당해 사업 내의 최다수 근로자에게 적용되는 퇴직금 제도를 적용하여야 할 경우, 만약 최다수 근로자에 대한 퇴직금 규정이 근로자의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의를 얻지 아니한 채 근로자에게 불리하게 변경되어 있었다면, 비록 최다수 근로자에 속하는 근로자로서 퇴직금 규정이 변경되기 전에 입사한 자에 대하여는 기득이익의 보호를 위하여 개정 전의 퇴직금 규정이 적용된다고 하더라도 최다수 근로자에 속하지 아니하는 근로자에 대하여는 기득이익의 침해가 없는 한 최다수 근로자에게 법규적 효력이 있는 개정된 퇴직금 규정이 적용되는 것으로 보아야 한다.

[3] 구체적인 퇴직금청구권은 계속 근로가 끝나는 퇴직이라는 사실을 요건으로 하여 발생하는 것이어서 계속 근무기간의 중간에 사용자에 의하여 퇴직금 규정이 변경되었다면 변경 이후의 근속기간은 물론이고 근로자의 기득이익을 침해하지 않는 한 원칙적으로 변경 전의 근속기간에 대하여도 변경된 퇴직금 규정을 적용하여야 하고, 이와 같은 법리는 퇴직금 규정이 사용자에 의하여 변경된 것이 아니라 구 근로기준법(1980. 12. 31. 법률 제3349호로 개정된 것) 규정에 의하여 1981. 4. 1.부터 퇴직금차등제도가 금지되고 당해 사업 내의 최다수 근로자에게 적용되는 퇴직금 제도가 전체 근로자에 대하여 적용되는 경우에도 동일하다.

[4] 일반직 근로자에 대한 퇴직금 규정이 근로자 집단의 동의 없이 불이익하게 변경된 상태에서 퇴직금차등제도 금지 규정이 시행된 경우, 구 근로기준법(1980. 12. 31. 법률 제3349호로 개정된 것) 제28조 제2항이 시행된 1981. 4. 1. 현재 일반직 직원에 대하여 법규적 효력을 가지는 퇴직금 규정은 개정 전 퇴직금 규정이 아니라 개정 퇴직금 규정이므로, 퇴직금차등제도가 금지되기 이전에 별정직 직원으로 입사하였다가 그 이후에 퇴직한 별정직 근로자에 대한 퇴직금을 산정함에 있어서는 1981. 4. 1. 당시의 일반직 직원과 별정직 직원의 수를 비교하여 본 후 일반직 직원이 다수일 경우 원칙적으로 개정 퇴직금 규정을 적용하되, 다만 1981. 3. 31.까지의 근속기간에 대하여는 기득이익의 보호를 위하여 별정직 직원에 대한 촉탁·임시고원관리예규를 적용하는 경우와 개정 퇴직금 규정을 적용하는 경우를 비교하여 별정직 직원에게 유리한 규정을 적용하여야 한다.

【참조조문】

[1] 구 근로기준법(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5309호로 제정되기 전의 것) 제42조 제1항, 제48조, 제49조 제3호

[2] 구 근로기준법(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5309호로 제정되기 전의 것) 제28조 제2항, 제95조 제1항, 부칙(1980. 12. 31.) 제2항

[3] 구 근로기준법(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5309호로 제정되기 전의 것) 제28조 제2항, 제95조 제1항, 부칙(1980. 12. 31.) 제2항

[4] 구 근로기준법(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5309호로 제정되기 전의 것) 제28조 제2항, 제95조 제1항, 부칙(1980. 12. 31.) 제2항

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 1996. 11. 22. 선고 96다30571 판결(공1997상, 25), 대법원 1996. 12. 23. 선고 96다39042 판결(공1997상, 522), 대법원 1997. 4. 25. 선고 95다4056 판결(공1997상, 1555) /[2][3] 대법원 1996. 9. 10. 선고 96다3241 판결(공1996하, 2996), 대법원 1996. 12. 23. 선고 95다32631 판결(공1997상, 482) /[2][4] 대법원 1997. 7. 11. 선고 97다14934 판결(공1997하, 2495) /[2] 대법원 1992. 12. 22. 선고 91다45165 전원합의체 판결(공1993상, 546), 대법원 1993. 1. 15. 선고 92다39778 판결(공1993상, 710) /[3] 대법원 1990. 11. 27. 선고 89다카15939 판결(공1991, 192), 대법원 1992. 9. 14. 선고 92다17754 판결(공1992, 2874), 대법원 1995. 7. 11. 선고 93다26168 판결(공1995하, 2577)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 6,093자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고,피상고인】

【원고(상고인겸피상고인)】

【피고(피상고인겸상고인)】 한국도로공사 (소송대리인 변호사 이영준 외 2인)

【원심판결】 서울고법 1996. 8. 30. 선고 95나15300 판결

【주문】

원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고 3, 원고 4, 원고 5, 원고 6, 원고 7, 원고 8의 상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고가 기각된 부분에 관한 상고비용은 위 원고들의 부담으로 한다.

【이유】 상고이유를 본다.

1. 원고 3, 원고 4, 원고 5, 원고 6, 원고 7, 원고 8(이하 위 원고들이라 한다)의 상고이유 제1, 2점에 대하여

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 원고 3, 원고 4, 원고 5 및 원고 6, 원고 7, 원고 8의 피상속인 망 소외 1(이하 원고 3, 원고 4, 원고 5, 망 소외 1을 원고 3 등이라 한다.)과 피고 공사 사이에 격일제 근로계약이 적법하게 성립하여 유효하게 존속한 이상 원고 3 등이 피고 공사로부터 지급받은 임금에는 시간외 근로수당과 휴일 근로수당 및 야간 근로수당이 포함되어 있다는 이유로 위 원고들의 각 수당 청구를 배척하였다.

기록에 의하면 원고 3은 1977. 5. 10., 원고 4는 1977. 4. 14., 원고 5는 1977. 4. 21., 망 소외 1은 1980. 7. 22. 각 피고 공사에 별정직인 청원경찰로 입사하여 근무하다가 원고 3은 1993. 9. 18., 원고 4는 1993. 10. 24., 원고 5는 1993. 10. 22., 망 소외 1은 1992. 11. 2. 각 퇴직하였는데, 원고 3 등은 입사 후 퇴직할 때까지 3인 1조를 이루어 1일 24시간 격일제로 근무하면서 과적차량단속(1일 과적으로 단속되는 차량은 10대 미만이었던 것으로 보인다.), 주요시설물 경계, 순찰 등의 업무를 담당하여 온 사실, 1975. 10. 1. 제정되어 원고 3, 원고 4, 원고 5의 입사 당시 시행되던 촉탁·임시고용원관리예규에 의하면 청원경찰은 임시고원의 일종이고, 임시고원은 일당제로 고용되었으며, 1일 8시간 외에 시간외 근무, 야간근무를 하였거나 휴일근무를 하였을 때에는 시간당 기본임금의 100분의 50을 가산 지급한다고 규정하고 있고, 1983. 1. 1. 제정된 피고 공사의 촉탁ㆍ고원및청원경찰관리예규(이하 별정직직원관리예규라 한다)에 의하면 별정직 직원의 근무시간, 휴일, 휴가 및 보수에 관한 사항에 대하여는 일반직 직원에 관한 취업규칙 및 보수규정을 준용하게 되어 있고, 나아가 피고 공사의 일반직 직원에 대한 취업규칙 및 보수규정에 의하면 일반직 직원 역시 업무의 성질에 따라 3교대제 또는 격일제로 근무하는 특수근무자와 그 외의 통상근무자로 구분되고, 직원의 근무시간은 1일 8시간, 1주 44시간이 원칙이나 특수근무자는 3교대제 또는 1일 24시간 격일제로 근무하도록 되어 있으며, 직원의 연장, 휴일, 야간근로에 대하여는 보수규정이 정하는 바에 따라 수당을 지급하도록 되어 있는 사실을 알 수 있다.

그런데 구 근로기준법(1996. 12. 31. 법률 제5245호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 법이라 한다) 제2조에 의하면 법이 정하는 각 근로조건은 최저한의 기준이라 할 것인데 그럼에도 불구하고 감시ㆍ단속적 근로로서 노동부장관의 인가(그 후 노동위원회의 승인으로 바뀌었다가 다시 노동부장관의 승인으로 바뀌었다.)를 받은 경우에는 법 제49조에 의하여 근로시간 및 휴일과 휴게에 관한 법 규정의 적용이 배제되는바, 이에 비추어 보면 비록 촉탁·임시고용원관리예규나 취업규칙에서 근로시간과 휴일, 휴게 등에 관하여 규정하고 있다고 하더라도 이는 노동부장관으로부터 근로시간 등에 관한 법 규정의 적용제외에 대한 인가를 받은 근로자에 대하여는 적용할 수 없는 것으로 보아야 할 것이고, 한편 기록에 의하면 피고 공사는 1973.경 청원경찰을 비롯한 격일제 근로자의 업무가 감시 또는 단속적 근로에 해당한다고 하여 노동부장관으로부터 법의 근로시간과 휴일 및 휴게에 관한 규정의 적용배제에 대한 인가를 받아 이를 갱신하여 온 사실을 알 수 있으므로, 피고 공사는 원고 ○○○ 등에게 촉탁·임시고용원관리예규나 별정직직원관리예규와 취업규칙 및 보수규정에 따른 시간외 근로수당과 휴일 근로수당을 지급할 의무가 있다고 할 수 없고, 따라서 위 원고들의 시간외 근로수당 청구와 휴일 근로수당 청구는 이유가 없다.

그리고 기록에 의하면, 피고 공사는 1978. 12. 29. 청원경찰 등 격일제 근로자에 대하여 '야간 근로수당'을 지급할 것을 조건으로 하여 위의 인가를 받은 다음(그 이후에도 매년 갱신하여 인가를 받아 오다가 1988. 이후에는 종전 인가의 효력이 유지됨을 전제로 인가의 갱신을 받지 아니하였다.), 위 인가 조건에 따라 1979. 1. 1.부터 기본임금 외에 1일 7시간분의 야간 근로수당을 지급하다가 1989. 1. 1.부터는 1일 8시간분의 야간 근로수당을 지급하였고, 그 후 급여인상 차원에서 실제의 근무와 관계없이 1990.부터는 시간외 근무 4시간분, 1991.부터는 야간근무 8시간분을 매월 추가로 지급하여 온 사실을 알 수 있는바, 사실관계가 이와 같다면 위 원고들이 구하는 1991. 3. 이후의 야간 근로수당은 모두 지급되었다고 할 것이므로 위 원고들의 야간 근로수당 청구도 이유가 없다.

따라서 원심의 설시이유는 적절하지 않지만, 원심이 위 원고들의 각 수당 청구를 배척한 결론은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유가 지적하는 바와 같은 법리오해의 위법이 없다.

2. 피고의 상고이유에 대하여

사용자가 근로자에게 불리하게 취업규칙을 변경함에 있어 근로자의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의를 얻지 아니하였다고 하더라도 취업규칙의 작성ㆍ변경권이 사용자에게 있는 이상 현행의 법규적 효력을 가진 취업규칙은 변경된 취업규칙이고 다만 기득이익이 침해되는 기존 근로자에 대하여는 종전 취업규칙이 적용된다 할 것이므로( 대법원 1992. 12. 22. 선고 91다45165 전원합의체 판결 참조) 퇴직금차등제도를 금지한 구 근로기준법(1980. 12. 31. 법률 제3349호) 제28조 제2항 및 부칙 제2항에 의하여 1981. 4. 1.부터 당해 사업 내의 최다수 근로자에게 적용되는 퇴직금 제도를 적용하여야 할 경우, 만약 최다수 근로자에 대한 퇴직금 규정이 근로자의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의를 얻지 아니한 채 근로자에게 불리하게 변경되어 있었다면, 비록 최다수 근로자에 속하는 근로자로서 퇴직금 규정이 변경되기 전에 입사한 자에 대하여는 기득이익의 보호를 위하여 개정 전의 퇴직금 규정이 적용된다고 하더라도 최다수 근로자에 속하지 아니하는 근로자에 대하여는 기득이익의 침해가 없는 한 최다수 근로자에게 법규적 효력이 있는 개정된 퇴직금 규정이 적용되는 것으로 보아야 할 것이다.

그리고 구체적인 퇴직금청구권은 계속 근로가 끝나는 퇴직이라는 사실을 요건으로 하여 발생하는 것이어서( 대법원 1992. 9. 14. 선고 92다17754 판결 참조) 계속 근무기간의 중간에 사용자에 의하여 퇴직금 규정이 변경되었다면 변경 이후의 근속기간은 물론이고 근로자의 기득이익을 침해하지 않는 한 원칙적으로 변경 전의 근속기간에 대하여도 변경된 퇴직금 규정을 적용하여야 할 것이고(대법원 1990. 11. 27. 선고 89다카15939 판결 참조), 이와 같은 법리는 퇴직금 규정이 사용자에 의하여 변경된 것이 아니라 위와 같이 구 근로기준법(1980. 12. 31. 법률 제3349호) 규정에 의하여 1981. 4. 1.부터 퇴직금차등제도가 금지되고 당해 사업 내의 최다수 근로자에게 적용되는 퇴직금 제도가 전체 근로자에 대하여 적용되는 경우에도 동일하다 할 것이다( 대법원 1996. 12. 23. 선고 95다32709 판결 참조).

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 원고 1은 1975. 1. 1., 원고 2는 1979. 2. 1., 원고 3은 1977. 5. 10., 원고 4는 1977. 4. 14., 원고 5는 1977. 4. 21., 망 소외 1은 1980. 7. 22. 각 피고 공사에 별정직 직원으로 입사하여 근무하다가(이하 원고 1, 원고 2, 원고 3, 원고 4, 원고 5, 망 소외 1을 원고 1 등이라 한다) 원고 1은 1993. 12. 31., 원고 2는 1993. 3. 31., 원고 3은 1993. 9. 18., 원고 4는 1993. 10. 24., 원고 5는 1993. 10. 22., 망 소외 1은 1992. 11. 2. 각 퇴직한 사실, 피고 공사는 원고 1 등의 입사 전부터 별정직 직원에 대하여 일반직 직원과는 달리 촉탁및고원관리예규를 두어 재직기간 1년에 대하여 1개월분의 월평균임금을 퇴직금으로 지급하고, 일반직 직원에 대하여는 퇴직급여규정(이하 개정 전 퇴직금 규정이라 한다)을 두어 퇴직 당시의 월봉에 고율의 누진제에 의한 퇴직금 지급률을 곱하여 산출한 퇴직금을 지급하되 월봉은 월평균임금을 의미한다는 퇴직금 제도를 둔 사실, 피고 공사는 근로자의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의를 얻지 아니한 채 원고 1 등의 입사 이후인 1981. 1. 1. 일반직 직원에 대한 퇴직금 규정을 개정함에 있어 월봉에 퇴직금 지급률을 곱하여 퇴직금을 산출하는 기본방식은 유지하면서 누진율을 인하하고 월봉의 개념을 퇴직 직전일로부터 최종 3개월간에 지급된 기본급 및 매월 공통으로 지급하는 제 수당(건설수당, 시간외 근무수당, 휴일근무수당, 월차휴가수당)과 퇴직 직전 1년간에 지급된 연차휴가수당 및 상여수당의 3/12 해당액의 합산액을 3등분한 것으로 제한하여(이하 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정이라 한다) 기존의 일반직 직원에 대하여 개정 전 퇴직금 규정을 불이익하게 변경한 사실을 인정한 다음, 그 판시와 같은 이유로 원고 1 등의 전근무기간에 대하여 개정 전 퇴직금 규정을 적용하여 퇴직금을 산정하였다.

그러나 사실관계가 원심이 인정한 바와 같다면, 구 근로기준법(1980. 12. 31. 법률 제3349호로 개정된 것) 제28조 제2항이 시행된 1981. 4. 1. 현재 피고 공사의 일반직 직원에 대하여 법규적 효력을 가지는 퇴직금 규정은 개정 전 퇴직금 규정이 아니라 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정이라 할 것이므로, 퇴직금차등제도가 금지되기 이전에 피고 공사에 별정직 직원으로 입사하였다가 퇴직금차등제도가 금지된 이후에 퇴직한 원고 ○○○ 등에 대한 퇴직금을 산정함에 있어서는 피고 공사 내의 1981. 4. 1. 당시의 일반직 직원과 별정직 직원의 수를 비교하여 본 후 일반직 직원이 다수일 경우 원칙적으로 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정을 적용하되 (다만, 기록에 의하면 1981. 1. 1. 이후 피고 공사의 퇴직금 규정이 개정되어 월봉에 야간 근로수당이 포함되었으므로 원고 1 등의 퇴직금 산정의 기초가 되는 월봉에는 야간 근로수당이 포함되어야 할 것이다.), 다만 1981. 3. 31.까지의 근속기간에 대하여는 기득이익의 보호를 위하여 별정직 직원에 대한 촉탁및고원관리예규를 적용하는 경우와 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정을 적용하는 경우를 비교하여 원고 ○○○ 등에게 유리한 규정을 적용하여야 할 것이다( 당원 1996. 12. 23. 선고 95다32709 판결 참조).

그럼에도 불구하고 원심은 그 판시와 같은 이유로 원고 1 등의 전체 근무기간에 대하여 개정 전 퇴직금 규정을 적용하여 퇴직금을 산정하였으니, 원심판결에는 1980. 12. 31. 법률 제3349호로 신설된 구 근로기준법 제28조 제2항, 부칙 제2항에 대한 법리오해의 위법이 있다 할 것이고, 따라서 이 점을 지적하는 피고의 상고는 이유가 있다.

3. 결 론

그러므로 원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하여 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송하고, 원고 3, 원고 4, 원고 5, 원고 6, 원고 7, 원고 8의 상고를 모두 기각하며 상고가 기각된 부분에 관한 상고비용은 패소자인 위 원고들의 부담으로 하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 이용훈(재판장) 박만호 박준서(주심) 김형선

Related statutes

근로기준법 제2조근로기준법 제49조구 근로기준법 제28조 제2항

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
95다32631 · 대법원 1996-12-23
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case
#2
95다53188 · 대법원 1996-10-15
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case
#3
2019가단57512 · 제주지방법원 2020-12-11
Wages
#4
2001다16722 · 대법원 2002-06-11
Wages (Severance Pay Calculation Dispute)
#5
98다11628 · 대법원 2000-02-25
Retirement Pay

Cases citing this decision

2003다40798 · 대법원 2005-07-08
퇴직금등·부당이득금
98다11628 · 대법원 2000-02-25
Retirement Pay
99다2881 · 대법원 1999-05-28
Wages, etc. (노임등)
97다24511 · 대법원 1997-11-28
Retirement Pay, etc.
97다14934 · 대법원 1997-07-11
Severance Pay Case (Korea Expressway Corporation)

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)