[Plaintiffs, Appellants] Eom Tae-yong and 2 others; Attorney Bae Byeong-geun, counsel for the plaintiffs
[Defendant, Appellee] Korea Tourism Corporation (국제관광공사); Attorney Jeon Bong-deok, counsel for the defendant
[Original Judgment] Seoul High Court Decision 76Na12 rendered on May 26, 1977
[Order]
The portion of the original judgment against the plaintiffs is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
[Reasoning]
As to the grounds for appeal submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs:
According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below found the fact that, since 1967, prior to the plaintiffs' respective retirements from the defendant corporation, the defendant corporation had paid bonuses twice a year, at the end of June and the end of December, each amounting to 150 percent of the salary. The court below then rejected the plaintiffs' claim in this case for additional retirement allowance—which sought calculation of three months' worth of the aforementioned bonus into the average wage on the premise that the plaintiffs had received such bonuses—on the ground that the plaintiffs had not actually received the aforementioned bonuses during the three months preceding each of their respective dates of retirement.
However,
The concept of average wage itself exists in order to guarantee a worker's ordinary living wage, and the bonus at issue in this case is, as found by the court below, undoubtedly a type of wage paid as compensation for labor, and it must be regarded as wages received, or that should have been received, separately from the monthly salary amount. Therefore, the result of calculating the average wage for the purpose of determining retirement allowance should not differ depending on whether the said bonus was paid in a lump sum or in installments, or depending on the number of installments or the method of payment; rather, it is proper that the amount equivalent to three months, obtained by dividing the annual bonus amount by twelve, be included in the calculation of the average wage that serves as the basis for calculating a worker's retirement allowance, regardless of whether the worker actually received it during the three months preceding retirement or not. Since the original judgment made the aforementioned determination from the opposite standpoint, it misunderstood the purport and interpretation of the defendant's remuneration regulations and Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) as they apply to the calculation of average wage, which serves as the basis for calculating retirement allowance in a case such as this, and this illegality affected the judgment. Therefore, the argument is well-founded, and the portion of the original judgment concerning this issue cannot escape reversal.
Accordingly, the portion of the original judgment against the plaintiffs is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, and it is so ordered by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices, as set forth in the Order.
Supreme Court Justices: Han Hwan-jin (Presiding Judge), Kim Yeong-se, An Byeong-su, Jeong Tae-won