[Plaintiffs, Appellants and Appellees] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Attorneys Lee Dong-san and 3 others of I&S Law Firm, Counsel for the Plaintiffs)
[Defendants, Appellees and Appellants] NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd. and 1 other (Attorneys of Law Firm (LLC) Hwawoo and 1 other, Counsel for the Defendants)
[Defendant, Appellee] Citibank Korea Inc.
[Judgment Below] Seoul Central District Court Judgment 2017Na85261, decided September 21, 2018
[Order]
Of the portion of the judgment below concerning damages for delay awarded against Plaintiff 1, the part of the judgment against Defendant NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd. ordering payment in excess of the amount calculated on KRW 54,341,333 at the rate of 6% per annum from May 1, 2012 to September 21, 2018, and at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day until the date of full payment, is reversed, and the corresponding portion of Plaintiff 1's claim is dismissed. All appeals filed by Defendant NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd. against Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 are dismissed as inadmissible. All appeals filed by the Plaintiffs, the remainder of the appeal filed by Defendant NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd. against Plaintiff 1, and the appeal filed by Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance Co., Ltd. are all dismissed. Of the total litigation costs incurred between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd., 40% shall be borne by Plaintiff 1 and the remainder by Defendant NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd.; the costs arising from Plaintiff 1's appeal against Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and Defendant Citibank Korea Inc. shall be borne by Plaintiff 1; the costs arising from the appeals of Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 shall be borne by said Plaintiffs; the costs arising from Defendant NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd.'s appeal against Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 shall be borne by Defendant NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd.; and the costs arising from Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance Co., Ltd.'s appeal shall be borne by Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
[Reasoning] The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding the Plaintiffs' grounds of appeal
The court below determined, for the reasons stated in its judgment, that since the compulsory execution procedure based on the seizure and collection order, etc. concerning the one-half portion of the death retirement benefit at issue in this case had already concluded, the Defendants, as the execution creditors, merely bore an obligation to return unjust enrichment to Plaintiff 1, and that Defendant NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant NongHyup Bank") did not have an obligation to pay the death retirement benefit to Plaintiff 1. With respect to the Plaintiffs' secondary conjunctive claim seeking, in proportion to their respective inheritance shares, the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants regarding the one-half portion of the death retirement benefit at issue in this case, the court below calculated the scope of the Defendants' obligation to return unjust enrichment owed to Plaintiff 1 in accordance with the purport and grounds of the claim, granted Plaintiff 1's claim, and dismissed the claims of Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3.
Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, there is no error in the lower court's determination that misapprehended the legal principles concerning the effect of the procedure for the execution of claims, the continued existence of the claim for payment of the death retirement benefit at issue in this case, or the exercise of the right to seek clarification, that affected the judgment.
2. Regarding the grounds of appeal of Defendant NongHyup Bank and Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance")
A. Regarding the legal nature of the death retirement benefit (Defendant NongHyup Bank's first and second grounds of appeal, and Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance's first ground of appeal)
1) Where a collective agreement provides that the retirement benefit paid upon an employee's death (hereinafter "death retirement benefit") is to be paid to the bereaved family in accordance with the scope and order of survivor compensation set forth in the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), unless the individual employee expressed to the employer an intention contrary thereto, the bereaved family who is entitled to receive the benefit acquires the death retirement benefit directly pursuant to the above provision, not as an heir; accordingly, in such a case, the death retirement benefit must be regarded not as inherited property but as the bereaved family member's own property. The reasons are as follows.
A) The Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act (「근로자퇴직급여 보장법」, hereinafter the "Retirement Benefit Security Act") sets forth provisions concerning the amount and method of payment, etc. of retirement benefits that an employer must pay to a retired employee, but does not explicitly provide for who is entitled to receive a death retirement benefit.
B) In general, a retirement benefit has, in addition to the character of deferred wages and of compensation for meritorious service, the character of a social security benefit as well (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Meu2250, decided July 16, 2014). Accordingly, a death retirement benefit may be viewed as having, in addition to the character of consideration for the deceased employee's labor during his or her lifetime, the character of a benefit intended for the livelihood security and welfare improvement of the bereaved family who were being supported by the employee at the time of his or her death. Therefore, a provision in a collective agreement stipulating that a death retirement benefit is to be paid to bereaved family members in need of livelihood security due to the employee's death during employment is also consistent with the nature of a death retirement benefit.
C) A collective agreement is the result of the exercise of the right to collective bargaining, a fundamental right directly guaranteed by the Constitution, and of the institutional guarantee of labor-management autonomy in agreement-making provided by the Constitution; accordingly, the courts must exercise caution in intervening in a paternalistic manner (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da248998, decided August 27, 2020). That is, where a labor union and an employer have agreed, through a collective agreement, for the purpose of securing the livelihood and improving the welfare of bereaved family members, that the death retirement benefit is to be paid to the bereaved family members prescribed under the Labor Standards Act, this cannot, in itself, be regarded as manifestly lacking reasonableness, and should be respected to the extent possible.
2) The court below determined, for the reasons stated in its judgment, that the death retirement benefit at issue in this case constitutes the own property of Plaintiff 1, who falls under the category of "bereaved family" set forth in Article 82 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof.
Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, there is no error in the lower court's determination that the death retirement benefit at issue in this case constitutes Plaintiff 1's own property, whether by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the legal nature of a death retirement benefit or by omitting necessary determinations, that affected the judgment.
B. Regarding the rate of damages for delay (Defendant NongHyup Bank's fourth ground of appeal)
1) According to Article 37(1) and (2) of the Labor Standards Act, and Articles 17 and 18(3) of its Enforcement Decree, in principle, where an employer fails to pay all or part of wages or retirement benefits under the Retirement Benefit Security Act within 14 days from the date on which the cause for payment arose, the employer must pay delay interest at a rate of 20% per annum for the number of days of delay from the day following such date until the date of payment. However, where it is deemed appropriate for a court or the Labor Relations Commission to adjudicate a dispute over the existence of all or part of the delayed wages or retirement benefits, there is no need to pay delay interest at the above rate for the period during which such cause continues to exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da239110, decided October 18, 2019).
2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts may be found.
With respect to Plaintiff 1's primary claim, Defendant NongHyup Bank argued, in essence, that the claim for the death retirement benefit at issue in this case constituted inherited property, and that Defendant NongHyup Bank's deposit of KRW 54,341,334 out of that amount, and the distribution thereof to the Defendants, were valid.
The court below, while finding that the claim for the death retirement benefit at issue in this case was Plaintiff 1's own property, nevertheless determined that Plaintiff 1 could not directly seek payment from Defendant NongHyup Bank of the KRW 54,341,334 portion of the death retirement benefit that had been deposited, and thus granted only the KRW 54,341,333 portion of the primary claim, ordering payment of delay damages thereon calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as set forth in Article 37(1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of its Enforcement Decree, from May 1, 2012, the date 14 days after the date of retirement due to the decedent's death, until the date of full payment.
3) Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles set forth above, insofar as Defendant NongHyup Bank's argument was partially accepted by the court below and only part of Plaintiff 1's primary claim was granted, it is reasonable to view that it was appropriate for Defendant NongHyup Bank to dispute the existence of all or part of the death retirement benefit at issue in this case until September 21, 2018, the date of pronouncement of the judgment below. Accordingly, for that period, the 20% per annum delay damages rate prescribed under the Labor Standards Act cannot be applied; rather, since the employment contract concluded between Defendant NongHyup Bank and the decedent constitutes an auxiliary commercial act, the 6% per annum delay damages rate prescribed under the Commercial Act (상법) must be applied.
Nevertheless, the judgment below, which ordered payment of delay damages at the rate prescribed under the Labor Standards Act for the above period, erred by misapprehending the legal principles concerning delay damages under the Labor Standards Act, thereby affecting the judgment.
4) However, even if the claim for the death retirement benefit at issue in this case is Plaintiff 1's own property, it does not thereby lose its character as a retirement benefit under the Retirement Benefit Security Act. Therefore, there is no error in the lower court's application of the 20% per annum delay damages rate prescribed under the Labor Standards Act and its Enforcement Decree, for the period from the day following the date of pronouncement of the judgment below, to the amount granted under the primary claim, by misapprehending the legal principles concerning delay damages under the Labor Standards Act, that affected the judgment. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is well-founded only with respect to the claim for delay damages for the period from May 1, 2012 to September 21, 2018, the date of pronouncement of the judgment below.
C. Regarding the remaining grounds of appeal
1) The court below determined, for the reasons stated in its judgment, that Defendant NongHyup Bank should be deemed to have waived the benefit of extinctive prescription by issuing, on January 16, 2017, a "Notice of Planned Settlement of Limited Inherited Property (Retirement Benefit)," and that Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance owed Plaintiff 1 an obligation to return, as unjust enrichment, the money collected through the distribution procedure.
2) Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, there is no error in the lower court's determination that misapprehended the legal principles concerning the waiver of the benefit of extinctive prescription or unjust enrichment, or omitted necessary determinations, that affected the judgment.
3. Regarding Defendant NongHyup Bank's appeal against Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3
Since the court below dismissed all of the claims of Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 against Defendant NongHyup Bank, Defendant NongHyup Bank's appeal against Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 is inadmissible for lack of interest in appeal.
4. Conclusion
Accordingly, of the portion of the judgment below concerning damages for delay awarded against Plaintiff 1, the part of the judgment against Defendant NongHyup Bank ordering payment in excess of "the amount calculated on KRW 54,341,333 at the rate of 6% per annum from May 1, 2012 to September 21, 2018, and at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day until the date of full payment" is reversed; and since this Court finds it sufficient to render judgment directly on this portion, this Court renders judgment itself pursuant to Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act (민사소송법). The corresponding portion of Plaintiff 1's claim, subject to the above reversal, is dismissed; all appeals filed by Defendant NongHyup Bank against Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 are dismissed as inadmissible; the remainder of Defendant NongHyup Bank's appeal against Plaintiff 1, Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance's appeal, and the Plaintiffs' appeals are all dismissed; of the total litigation costs incurred between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant NongHyup Bank, 40% shall be borne by Plaintiff 1 and the remainder by Defendant NongHyup Bank; and the costs arising from Plaintiff 1's appeal against Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance and Defendant Citibank Korea Inc., the costs arising from the appeals of Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, the costs arising from Defendant NongHyup Bank's appeal against Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, and the costs arising from Defendant NongHyup Life Insurance's appeal, shall each be borne by the respective losing parties. It is so decided by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices as set forth in the Order.
Justice Min Yu-sook (Presiding Justice), Lee Dong-won, Cheon Dae-yeop (Justice in Charge), Kwon Young-jun