Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 99도2168 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/261 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 99도2168

Violation of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, False Accusation, Occupational Embezzlement, Fraud, and Violation of the Labor Standards Act조세범처벌법위반·무고·업무상횡령·사기·근로기준법위반

Decided1999. 07. 13. Court대법원Worker 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 is a Supreme Court case confirming the principle that an employer cannot offset an employee's wages against money the employer lent to the employee or against a claim for damages. Except for the right to recover wages that were mistakenly overpaid, an employer cannot set off any other claim against an employee's wages. This case applies the fundamental principle under the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) that wages must be paid in full and directly to the employee.

Key takeaways
  • CaseIncident: An employer deducted amounts from an employee's wages to recover money it had lent to the employee or to cover a damages claim.
  • OutcomeResult: The Court ruled that, aside from recovering mistakenly overpaid wages, an employer cannot offset any other claim against an employee's wages.
  • LessonLesson: Even if a company has lent money to an employee, it must not deduct this from the employee's wages on its own initiative—wages must always be paid in full.
Issues
  • Whether an employer may offset an employee's wage claim against a loan the employer made to the employee or against a tort-based damages claim
  • The scope of persons obligated to prepare and issue tax invoices under the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act (조세범처벌법)
Key reasoning

Under the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), wages owed to an employee must be paid in full, directly to that employee, without deduction. Except for the employer's right to recover any wages that were overpaid by mistake, the employer may not offset the employee's wage claim against any other debt—such as a personal loan the employer made to the employee or a claim arising from a tort (불법행위) committed by the employee. This is a well-established legal principle rooted in the 'full and direct payment of wages' rule (임금 전액직접지급 원칙). The Court held that allowing employers to unilaterally deduct such amounts from wages would undermine the basic protection this rule is designed to provide to workers.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] Wages for workers must be paid in full directly to the workers, and therefore, except for a claim for the return of overpaid wages, an employer may not set off a wage claim of a worker against a loan claim or a claim arising from a tort that the employer holds against the worker.

[2] The term "a person who is required to prepare and issue a tax invoice pursuant to the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act (부가가치세법)" as prescribed in Article 11-2(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (조세범처벌법) means only a person who is registered as a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act and who bears the specific obligation to prepare and issue a tax invoice because he or she has actually supplied goods or services; it does not include a business operator who has not actually supplied goods to any person and thus has no obligation under the Value-Added Tax Act to prepare and issue a tax invoice. Accordingly, neither a person who falls under the category of a business operator registered under the Value-Added Tax Act but does not actually fall under the category of a person who has actually supplied the goods, nor a person who actually falls under the category of a person who has supplied the goods but does not fall under the category of a business operator registered under the Value-Added Tax Act, satisfies the status requirement demanded by the above offense, and therefore neither constitutes a crime.

Full text (English, AI translation) 5,996 chars

[Defendant] Defendant
[Appellant] Defendant
[Judgment Below] Busan District Court Decision 99No320, decided May 7, 1999

[Order]

The part of the judgment below that separately imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 4 months for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (조세범처벌법) resulting from the act of violating the duty to issue tax invoices, and for the violation of the same Act resulting from each act of issuing false tax invoices dated January 25, 1995 and February 21, 1995, is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the panel division of the Busan District Court.

The remainder of the Defendant's appeal is dismissed.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The part in which the appeal is dismissed

Considering the evidence lawfully examined and adopted by the court below in its entirety, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed the occupational embezzlement, fraud, and each false accusation offenses in this case, and that each sales tax invoice issued by the Defendant was falsely prepared without any corresponding sales actually having occurred. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment below, in that part, contains any illegality such as insufficient examination or misapprehension of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, as argued in the grounds of appeal, and this part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

Furthermore, since wages for workers must be paid directly and in full to the worker, it is the settled position of the Supreme Court that, except for claims for the return of overpaid wages, an employer may not set off against a worker's wage claim any claim the employer holds against the worker arising from a loan or from a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da14200, decided June 26, 1998; Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da26721, decided December 21, 1995, etc.). Therefore, the circumstance that the Defendant holds counterclaims as alleged against the workers in this case cannot constitute grounds justifying the Defendant's violation of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) arising from the failure to pay wages and retirement allowances to the workers, and this part of the grounds of appeal is likewise without merit.

Moreover, as to the parts in which sentences of imprisonment for 2 months, 10 months, and 10 months, respectively, were separately imposed for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act arising from the acts of issuing false tax invoices other than those reversed below, and for each of the occupational embezzlement, fraud, and false accusation offenses, the impropriety of the sentencing cannot be raised as a ground of appeal, and this part of the grounds of appeal is therefore also without merit.

2. The part reversed and remanded

As to the charge against the Defendant of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act arising from the act of violating the duty to issue sales tax invoices, the term "a person who is required to prepare and issue a tax invoice pursuant to the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act (부가가치세법)" as provided in Article 11-2(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act means only a person who is registered as a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act and who bears the specific duty to prepare and issue a tax invoice because that person has actually supplied goods or services; it does not include a business operator who has no duty to prepare and issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act because that person did not actually supply goods to any particular person. Neither a person who is registered as a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act but who did not actually supply the goods, nor a person who actually supplied the goods but who is not registered as a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act, satisfies the status requirement demanded by the above offense, and therefore neither constitutes the offense (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1738, decided March 8, 1996; Supreme Court Decision 94Do3376, decided September 29, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 95Do100, decided April 25, 1995, etc.).

According to the record in this case, the entity bearing the duty to prepare and issue the tax invoices specified in the charge is Non-indicted Company 1, whose representative is Non-indicted 2, and the Defendant, as the de facto manager, is merely the person who actually prepared the tax invoices, and is not deemed to be the person obligated to prepare and issue tax invoices under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act. Accordingly, the Defendant does not possess the status required under the above provision of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and thus the Defendant cannot be held liable for violation of the duty to issue tax invoices under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Therefore, the court below, having taken a different position and found the Defendant guilty of the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act arising from the above violation of the duty to issue sales tax invoices, committed an error of misapprehending the legal principles concerning the subject of punishment under Article 11(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit. Since the court below separately imposed a single sentence of imprisonment for 4 months for the above charge together with the offense under the same Act arising from each act of issuing false tax invoices dated January 25, 1995 and February 21, 1995, this entire part shall be reversed.

3. Accordingly, without examining the Defendant's remaining grounds of appeal concerning the reversed part above, the above part of the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below, and the Defendant's appeal as to the remainder is dismissed. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justice Park Jun-seo (Presiding Justice), Shin Seong-taek, Lee Im-su (Justice in charge), Seo Seong

【판결요지】

[1] 근로자에 대한 임금은 직접 근로자에게 전액을 지급하여야 하는 것이므로 초과지급된 임금의 반환채권을 제외하고는 사용자가 근로자에 대하여 가지는 대출금이나 불법행위를 원인으로 한 채권으로써 근로자의 임금채권과 상계하지 못한다.

[2] 조세범처벌법 제11조의2 제1항이 규정하고 있는 '부가가치세법의 규정에 의하여 세금계산서를 작성하여 교부하여야 할 자'라 함은 부가가치세법상 사업자로 등록된 사람이 실제로 재화나 용역을 공급하여 구체적으로 세금계산서를 작성하여 교부하여야 할 의무를 부담하는 자만을 의미하는 것이지 실제로 어떤 사람에게 재화를 공급하지 아니하여 부가가치세법상 세금계산서를 작성하여 교부하여야 할 의무가 없는 사업자까지 포함하는 것은 아니고, 부가가치세법상 사업자로 등록된 사람에는 해당하나 실제로 재화를 공급한 자에는 해당하지 아니하는 자와, 실제로 재화를 공급한 자에는 해당하나 부가가치세법상 사업자로 등록된 사람에는 해당하지 아니하는 자의 어느 쪽도 위 죄가 요구하는 신분의 요건을 충족시키지 못하고 있으므로 죄가 되지 아니한다.

【참조조문】

[1] 구 근로기준법(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5309호로 제정되기 전의 것) 제36조 제1항

[2] 조세범처벌법 제11조의2 제1항, 부가가치세법 제16조 제1항

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 1995. 6. 29. 선고 94다18553 판결(공1995하, 2516), 대법원 1995. 12. 21. 선고 94다26721 전원합의체 판결(공1996상, 208), 대법원 1996. 2. 9. 선고 94다19501 판결(공1996상, 857), 대법원 1996. 10. 25. 선고 96다5346 판결(공1996하, 3419), 대법원 1998. 6. 26. 선고 97다14200 판결(공1998상, 1960) / [2] 대법원 1989. 2. 28. 선고 88도2337 판결(공1989, 568), 대법원 1994. 6. 28. 선고 92도2417 판결(공1994하, 2144), 대법원 1995. 4. 25. 선고 95도100 판결(공1995상, 2011), 대법원 1995. 9. 29. 선고 94도3376 판결(공1995하, 3652), 대법원 1996. 3. 8. 선고 95도1738 판결(공1996상, 1307)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 2,322자 · 펼쳐 보기

【피 고 인】 피고인

【상 고 인】 피고인

【원심판결】 부산지법 1999. 5. 7. 선고 99노320 판결

【주 문】

원심판결 중 세금계산서교부의무위반행위에 따른 조세범처벌법위반죄와 1995. 1. 25. 자 및 같은 해 2. 21. 자 각 허위세금계산서 교부행위에 따른 위 법위반죄에 대하여 따로 징역 4월의 형을 정한 부분을 파기하고, 그 부분 사건을 부산지방법원 본원 합의부에 환송한다.

피고인의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 판단한다.

1. 상고를 기각하는 부분

원심이 적법한 증거조사를 통하여 채택한 증거들을 종합하면, 피고인이 이 사건 업무상횡령, 사기, 각 무고의 범행을 저지른 사실과, 피고인이 발행한 각 매출세금계산서는 모두 그에 따른 매출이 없이 허위로 작성된 것인 사실 등이 충분히 인정되므로, 그 부분 원심판결에 논지가 주장하는 바와 같은 심리미진이나 채증법칙 위반으로 인한 사실오인 등의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없어서, 이 부분 논지는 모두 이유가 없다.

또한 근로자에 대한 임금은 직접 근로자에게 전액을 지급하여야 하는 것이므로 초과지급된 임금의 반환채권을 제외하고는 사용자가 근로자에 대하여 가지는 대출금이나 불법행위를 원인으로 한 채권으로써 근로자의 임금채권과 상계를 하지 못한다고 함이 대법원의 확립된 입장이므로(대법원 1998. 6. 26. 선고 97다14200 판결, 1995. 12. 21. 선고 94다26721 전원합의체 판결 등 참조), 피고인이 이 사건 근로자들에 대하여 그 주장하는 바와 같은 반대채권을 가지고 있다는 사정은 피고인의 근로자들에 대한 임금 및 퇴직금 부지급에 따른 근로기준법위반행위를 정당화 할 수 있는 사유가 될 수 없다고 할 것이어서, 이 부분 논지 역시 이유가 없다.

그리고 피고인의 아래에서 파기되는 부분을 제외한 나머지 허위세금계산서교부행위에 따른 조세범처벌법위반의 점과 업무상횡령, 사기, 각 무고의 각 점에 대하여 따로 각 징역 2월, 10월, 10월의 형이 선고된 부분에 대하여는 형의 양정이 부당함을 들어 상고이유로 삼을 수 없는 것이므로, 이 부분 논지도 이유가 없다.

2. 파기환송하는 부분

피고인에 대한 매출세금계산서교부의무위반행위에 따른 조세범처벌법위반의 공소사실에 관하여 보건대, 조세범처벌법 제11조의2 제1항이 규정하고 있는 '부가가치세법의 규정에 의하여 세금계산서를 작성하여 교부하여야 할 자'라 함은 부가가치세법상 사업자로 등록된 사람이 실제로 재화나 용역을 공급하여 구체적으로 세금계산서를 작성하여 교부하여야 할 의무를 부담하는 자만을 의미하는 것이지 실제로 어떤 사람에게 재화를 공급하지 아니하여 부가가치세법상 세금계산서를 작성하여 교부하여야 할 의무가 없는 사업자까지 포함하는 것은 아니고, 부가가치세법상 사업자로 등록된 사람에는 해당하나 실제로 재화를 공급한 자에는 해당하지 아니하는 자와, 실제로 재화를 공급한 자에는 해당하나 부가가치세법상 사업자로 등록된 사람에는 해당하지 아니하는 자의 어느 쪽도 위 죄가 요구하는 신분의 요건을 충족시키지 못하고 있으므로 죄가 되지 아니한다고 할 것인바(대법원 1996. 3. 8. 선고 95도1738 판결, 1995. 9. 29. 선고 94도3376 판결, 1995. 4. 25. 선고 95도100 판결 등 참조), 이 사건 기록에 의하면, 공소사실이 적시하고 있는 세금계산서들의 작성 및 교부의무의 주체는 공소외 1 주식회사로서 그 대표자는 공소외 2로 되어 있고, 피고인은 사실상의 경영자로서 실제로 세금계산서를 작성하는 자일 뿐 부가가치세법 제16조에서 규정하는 세금계산서의 작성 및 교부의무자는 아니라고 보여지므로, 피고인은 조세범처벌법의 위 조항이 요구하는 신분을 갖추지 못하여 피고인에게 조세범처벌법이 정하는 세금계산서교부의무위반의 책임을 물을 수 없다고 할 것이다.

따라서 원심이 이와 다른 입장에서 피고인에 대한 위 매출세금계산서교부의무위반에 따른 조세범처벌법위반의 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 것은 조세범처벌법 제11조 제1항이 정하는 처벌주체에 관한 법리를 오해한 위법을 저지른 것이라고 할 것이므로 이를 지적하는 취지의 상고논지는 이유가 있고, 원심은 위 공소사실과 1995. 1. 25. 자 및 같은 해 2. 21. 자 각 허위세금계산서교부행위에 따른 위 법위반죄에 대하여 따로 징역 4월의 1개의 형을 정하였으므로 이 부분 전부를 파기하기로 한다.

3. 그러므로 위 파기 부분에 대한 피고인의 나머지 상고이유에 관한 판단을 생략한 채 원심판결 중 위 부분을 파기하여 사건을 원심법원에 환송하고, 나머지 부분에 대한 피고인의 상고는 기각하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 박준서(재판장) 신성택 이임수(주심) 서성

Related statutes

근로기준법 제23조조세범처벌법 제11조의2부가가치세법 제16조

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
98도1260 · 대법원 1998-06-26
Violation of the Labor Standards Act
#2
93다38529 · 대법원 1993-12-28
Severance Pay and Other Claims
#3
2001다25184 · 대법원 2001-10-23
Retirement Pay
#4
2019도10297 · 대법원 2022-03-31
근로기준법위반·근로자퇴직급여보장법위반
#5
93마1822, 1823 · 대법원 1994-03-16
Attachment and Order for Assignment of Claims (압류및전부명령)

Cases citing this decision

2022도2188 · 대법원 2022-05-26
Violation of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법위반)

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)