평균임금의 최저보장제도

이영배(Lee, Yeong-Bae) 한국비교노동법학회 2014 노동법논총 Vol.32 No.-

The wage paid from employer to worker is one of the most important working conditions for workers as economic resources to maintain basic livelihood. The Labor Standard Act has two types of standard wage called ‘average wage’ and ‘ordinary wage’ in order to ensure and improve basic livelihood of workers. It defines average wage as total amount of salary given during the three previous months before the day that reason to calculate happened divided by the total number of days. Retirement allowance, shutdown allowance, annual vacation allowance and industry injury compensation etc. are calculated by average wage so they are closely related to the protection of working conditions and it is therefore really needed to protect total amount of average wage. In order to guarantee such ‘average wage as living wage’, in article 2, section 2 of the Labor Standard Act, by using concept of ordinary wage, there is a rule that if average wage calculated by legal way is less than ordinary wage, ordinary wage is treated as average wage. In enforcement ordinance article 2, section 1 of the Labor Standard Act, to prevent the wide difference between average wage and ordinary living wage, it excludes certain period of time from calculation period of average wage, so it can prevent unfair loss to workers. Minimum average wage protection clause by ordinary wage is applied only when average wage is larger than ordinary wage. But recently, regular bonus and various benefits are officially accepted as ordinary wage so the range of ordinary wage is extended. Also there are cases that ordinary wage is larger than average wage in the process of shortening legal working hours. So regulatory action for such conditions is needed. When there’s no or little extended hours and no benefits or counted as ordinary wage, if retirement allowance or etc. are given only according to average wage, average wage will always be less than ordinary wage and it also means less retirement allowance will be given. So retirement allowance is needed to be calculated by ordinary wage according to article 2, section 2 of the Labor Standard Act. Because of these reasons, there’s concern about file of class action and it might occur from short-time workers. So we should revise article 2, section 2 of the Labor Standard Act as voluntary law. But at the same time, we should alleviate it by adding ‘case that workers couldn’t provide normal workforce’ enforcement ordinance article 2, section 1 of the Labor Standard Act so it can resolve contradiction of current law system and prevent widely average wage from radical drop so it will be devoted to original function of average wage, ‘guarantee living wages’.

성과상여금의 (평균)임금성

임상민 사법발전재단 2021 사법 Vol.1 No.55

After the Korean Supreme Court recently rendered decisions that collective performance bonus (payment for business performance) of public enterprise corresponds to average wages, debates over the issue of whether collective performance bonus (payment for business performance) of private companies can also be recognized as average wages have flourished. In reviewing the precedents dealing with the issue of whether a performance bonus paid by employer to employee has the nature of wages, some problems can be seen in these decisions. Namely, they did not distinguish between wages and average wages. The only requirements for performance bonus to satisfy to constitute as wages are that ① they should be provided as remuneration for work, and ② payment obligation should be based on labor contract, etc. Factors of continuity and regularity of payment or confirmation of the ground for payment, which the Court has placed emphasis on, are standards applied in determining whether certain wages are paid on a temporary basis. If wages are paid on a temporary basis, they are not included in average wages. The mainstream view held by the precedents recognizes the wages nature of personal performance bonus, which, in my view, is reasonable. The precedents which have admitted the average wages nature of collective performance bonus of public enterprise presuppose that collective performance bonus is paid as remuneration for work. Then, it is rational to find that collective performance bonus of private companies also corresponds to wages as remuneration for work. Even if the wage nature of collective performance bonus of private companies is admitted, the issue of whether such bonus corresponds to average wages should also be considered. We should review the relationship between ① continuity and regularity of payment and ② confirmation of the ground for payment, which are the standards for determining the nature of average wages. In case either one of the two standards is admitted, performance bonus cannot be considered to have been paid on a temporary basis and, therefore, collective performance bonus of private companies should be found to corresponds not only to wages but to average wages. 대법원이 최근 공기업 집단성과상여금(경영평가성과급)의 (평균)임금성을 인정하는 판결들을 선고한 이후, 사기업 집단성과상여금의 (평균)임금성에 대한 논의가 활발해졌다. 사용자가 근로자에게 지급하는 성과상여금의 임금성에 대한 선행판결들을 보면 문제점이 있다. 임금성과 평균임금성을 준별하지 않고 있다. 근로의 대가인지, 근로계약 등에 의한 지급의무가 인정되는지 여부만이 임금의 요건이다. 대법원이 중시하는 지급의 계속·정기성이나 지급사유의 사전확정성은 평균임금에서 제외되는 임시로 지급되는 임금을 판단하는 요소라 할 것이다. 개인성과상여금의 임금성을 인정하는 것이 주류적인 선행판례의 태도인 데 타당하다고 생각한다. 공기업 집단성과상여금의 평균임금성을 인정한 선행판례들은 집단성과상여금이 근로의 대가임을 전제로 한다. 타당하다고 생각한다. 그렇다면 사기업 집단성과상여금도 근로의 대가인 임금에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이다. 임금성을 인정하더라도 평균임금성이 있는지는 더 따져보아야 한다. 평균임금의 판단요소인 지급의 계속·정기성과 지급사유의 사전확정성이 어떤 관계에 있는지도 문제이다. 둘 중 어느 하나만 인정되더라도 임시로 지급되는 임금이라고 볼 수는 없으므로 평균임금에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이다.

임금의 개념과 임금제도의 합리적 운영

박종희 노동법이론실무학회 2023 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.38

1. Wages have to be determined based on the interpretation of the definition provision of Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 5 of the Labor Standards Act, so the criteria for determining whether or not they are money or goods paid in return for labor. The definition of paid in return for labor has the meaning of consideration, which corresponds to the labor provision under the bilateral contract of the labor contract relationship. 2. Whether the goods or money was given to the employee by the employer counts as a wage can be determined primarily based on the agreements of the parties involved. The agreement can be not only the individual agreement between the employee and employer but also the collective agreement. Even if there is no intent between the parties, if it can be determined as paid in return for labor through objective consideration then it can be determined as wage. 3. If the party's intent is unknown or it is hard to be objectively considered as paid in return for labor, it can be considered as wages if it is paid continuously and periodically, and also an obligation to pay exists; the employer has to prove that it is not given as paid in return for labor. Therefore, judgments on secondary factors such as direct andclose relationships with the offering of labor are unnecessary. Among the factors discussed, “paid continuously and periodically” is only a sign that it can be considered as wages, not the requirement that has to be met. Since the obligation to pay establishes a legal relationship between the parties involved in the contract, it can be considered a factor of paid in return for labor. Therefore, goods or money arbitrarily paid by the employer without obligation to pay is not wages; however, even if the money or goods is paid arbitrarily, if it becomes a practice and establishes a trust relationship between the party then the obligation to pay can be recognized. 4. Even if wages are understood as the meaning of consideration in bilateral contract relationships, it can be considered not only as the exchange value of labor, but also as a fundamental component of the company along with capital, and it can be understood as a continuous economic activity with the results is distributed among themselves. In this perspective, the so-called welfare benefit allowance has can be determined as wages if there is evidence that the employer has an obligation to pay and the employer has the power of disposal. On the other hand, compensation for actual expenses and purely favorable and beneficial money or goods are not wages. 5. The perspective to broadly understand wages can be seen in different academic fields. Understanding that whatever is understood in legal studies does not have to match with different academic fields, it is reasonable to understand a subject in the same context with different related academic fields. In business studies, the perspective of total compensation; in economics, the perspective of gross wage or gross remuneration can be indirectly referenced in labor to understand themeaning of wages. 6. Average wages or ordinary wages are merely instrumental concepts for calculating other statutory allowances, and they do not have an inherently unique meaning. Through legislative policy, calculation methods can be defined differently. Therefore, it is a misguided logical decision to define wages based on whether it is a wage corresponding to the calculation of average wages or the calculations of ordinary wages. 7. To be considered average wages or ordinary wages, it has to be considered under the frame of wages. Among the wages, it has to conform to the purpose of the average wages and ordinary wages. Since average wages are intended to represent ordinary living wages, wages that do not meet this nature are excluded. The “paid continuously and regularly” factor is evaluated as a supplementary factor to have the meaning of living wages, not temporary allowance. 8. Since business ... 1. 현행법에서 사용하고 있는 임금은 근기법 제2조 제1항 제5호의정의 규정이 중심에 서고, 다른 개별법령에서도 이와 연관지어 그 의미를 파악하는 것이 합체계적인 것으로 판단된다. 다만 문언적인 관점에서는 이렇게 해석하는 것에 여의치 않은 점이 제기된다. 즉 복리후생을 임금과 구별하여 규정하고 있는 경우도 있으며(기단법, 파견법, 남녀고용평등법, 노조법 등), 상여금이나 경영성과금도 임금과 준별되는 것으로 규정하고 있는 경우도 있는가 하면, 이러한 상여금과복리후생적 급여를 임금의 범주에 포함하여 규정한 경우도 있기 때문이다(최저임금법). 그렇기 때문에 실무에 명확성을 제고해 주려는 의도에서 개별 입법 취지에 부합하게끔 중복적인 의미가 내포된 상태로사용되었다고 해석하는 방안이 필요하다. 이와는 달리 입법자가 그와같은 입법을 의도한 바를 존중하여 충돌을 최대한 피하면서 문언에충실하게 해석을 전개하는 방안, 즉 임금의 의미를 광의와 협의로 나누어서 해석하는 방안을 강구해 볼 수도 있겠으나, 입법적으로 조율되는 것이 오히려 적절하다. 2. 임금은 근기법 제2조 제1항 제5호의 정의규정 해석에 기초하여판단하여야 하므로 근로의 대가로 지급된 금품인지의 여부가 판단기준이다. 하지만 근로의 대가로 지급되는 임금의 본질과 구체적 판단기준에 대해서는 입장의 차이가 있다. 2-1. 임금의 개념과 관련하여 ①근로계약이라는 채권법상 쌍무계약의 주된 급부의무의 견련관계 중심으로 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고지급의무가 근거지워져 있는 경우를 중심으로 파악하는 협의의 관점이 있는가 하면, ②민법상 보수와는 구별되는 노동법상 임금의 독자적인 의미를 강조하여 사용자의 비용의 관점에서 지급되는 일체의 금품(복리후생 전반)까지 포함하는 최광의의 의미로 이해하는 입장도 있다. 그리고 ③그 중간에서 근로제공과의 밀접도가 떨어지는 경우에도근로의 대가를 인정하려는 입장과, 사용자가 근로자에게 지급하는 일체의 금품을 임금으로 보되 근로의 대가로 지급되지 않았음을 사용자가 증명하도록 하여 배제시키고자 하는 입장 등이 있다. 여러 입장의 차이는 소위 복리후생적 급여를 임금에 포함시킬지, 포함시킨다면 어느 정도 포함시킬지의 정도의 차이에서 드러난다. 2-2. 판례는 임금의 개념은 쌍무적 채권관계에서 근로의 대가로 지급되는 금품으로 파악하고 설사 근로제공과 밀접도가 떨어지더라도근로의 대가로 지급된 것임을 인정할 수 있다면 임금에 해당하는 것으로 보았다. 그리고 이러한 임금의 범주와는 달리 평균임금과 통상임금은 그 취지에 따라 정해지는 것으로 이해하였다. 그런데 주목할 점은 대법원 2016다48785 판결에서는, 계속적·정기적으로 지급되고 지급의무가 근거지워져 있다면 임금으로 간주하고다른 부가적 판단기준을 덧붙이지 않았던 판단방식(편의상 ‘소극적 배제방식’)에서, 금품지급발생의무가 근로제공과 직접적 혹은 밀접하게관련되는 경우라는 적극적 표지를 갖춘 경우에 인정하자는 종래 입장(편의상 ‘적극적 포섭방식’)으로 다시 환원하였다는 것이다. 3. 임금은 근로계약이란 쌍무계약에서 근로의 대가로 지급되는 일체의 금품을 의미한다. 그러므로 임금성을 판단함에는 ‘근로의 대가’ 중심으로 판단하면 된다. 즉 임금의 지급은 근로의 제공과 견련관계에 놓여 있는 것이다. 또한 계속적 계약관...

통상임금과 평균임금에 포함되는 임금의 판단 -가족수당, 근속수당, 승무수당, 식비, 상여금을 중심으로-

하갑래 ( Gap Rae Ha ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2007 법학논총 Vol.31 No.1

This study looked at court rulings and administrative interpretations mainly concerning family allowances, seniority allowances, meal expenses, allowances for working days in transportation and bonuses to see how ordinary wages and average wages are defined and applied in them. As a result, it was found that some improvements can be made to the concepts of these two types of wages. First of all, in order to prevent any confusion that might arise from different definitions adopted by court rulings and administrative interpretations, the definition of ``ordinary wages`` should be prescribed by the Labor Standards Act. Second, the idea that ordinary wages shall be paid not to all workers but to workers who satisfy certain conditions should be clearly expressed in labor contract. Third, a particular amount of allowances paid to all workers should be considered ordinary wages in spite of their name. Fourth, the concept of ordinary wages needs to be further complemented to ensure that the amount of annual pay can be calculated based on ordinary wages. Meanwhile, the concept of average wages also needs more clarification. Benefits in kind should be seen as wages only when they are convertible into money. In addition, consideration should be given to making the base period for calculating average wages 12 months.

평균임금 산정방법의 해석상 문제점과 입법적 개선방안

최파라(PARA CHOI) 한국법학원 2015 저스티스 Vol.- No.148

근로기준법상 평균임금은 퇴직금과 각종 수당을 계산하는 기준임금으로 기능한다. 특히 평균임금은 퇴직금 산정을 위해 산정되는 경우가 많은데, 근로자가 퇴직금을 많이 받기 위해 퇴직 직전 3개월간의 임금을 높여 평균임금을 증가시킬 유인이 발생할 수 있고, 실제 성과수당이나 영업수당이 있는 사업장에서는 근로자가 퇴직 직전 의도적으로 성과수당 등 임금을 높이는 사례들이 자주 일어나고 있다. 한편 사용자의 대기발령, 휴업 등으로 퇴직 직전의 평균임금이 현저하게 낮아진 경우 근로자의 퇴직금이 부당하게 낮아지는 문제가 발생할 수도 있다. 판례는 일찍부터 이와 같이 근로기준법 관련규정에 의하여 퇴직 직전 3개월간의 임금에 의해 평균임금을 산정하는 것이 현저하게 부적당한 경우, 근로기준법 시행령 제4조에 따라 고용노동부장관이 정하는 바에 의하여 평균임금을 산정하여야 한다고 판시하여 왔다. 그러나 판례가 말하는 평균임금을 산정하는 것이 현저히 부적당한 때가 언제인지 불명확할 뿐만 아니라, 현저히 부적당하다고 인정되는 경우 그 평균임금을 어떠한 방법에 의해 산정해야 할 것인지에 대하여 아직까지 고용노동부장관이 기준을 정한 바가 없어, 이를 둘러싼 법적 분쟁이 빈번히 발생하고 있는 실정이다. 현재 실무는 민사소송을 통한 법원의 개별적 판단에 의해 분쟁이 해결되고 있으나, 법원 판단에 대한 예측가능성이 떨어지고 잦은 소송으로 인한 사회적 비용이 과다하게 발생한다는 문제가 있다. 본 논문에서는 휴업수당 산정을 위한 평균임금을 “정상적으로 임금을 지급받은 최종 시점을 기준으로 소급하여 1년의 기간에 해당하는 임금을 3개월분으로 환산하여 월 평균임금을 산정”한 것이 정당하다고 한 대판 2013.10. 11, 2012다12870을 글감으로 하여, 평균임금 산정에 관한 현행법령의 해석상 문제점을 지적하고, 보다 공평하고 예측가능한 평균임금 산정방법을 마련하기 위한 입법적 개선방안을 제안한다. The average wage is a tool to calculate other wages including retirement payment. Employees have a motivation to boost the average wage temporarily to increase retirement payment, and it happens very much especially about incentives. On the other hand, employers can make employee’s average wage go down by temporary shutdown. The Supreme Court decided that effects of making average wage fluctuation intentionally and remarkably shall not be included in the calculating sequence, and Enforcement decree of the Labor Standards Act Article 4 shall be applied to such a case. But the standard on the remarkable increase of average wage is vague, and the calculation method of average wage in that case is also uncertain. So, to resolve the legal disputes on the average wage, this article analyzes the interpretative problems of the current Labor Standards Act, and suggests the legislative improvement measures on the calculation of the average wage.

상여금(경영성과급)의 법적 성격에 관한 연구 - 일본과의 비교법적 고찰을 중심으로 -

이정 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2020 외법논집 Vol.44 No.2

There is much controversy over whether bonuses (PI, PS) amount to wages. In order for any money to be a wage, employers need to meet the requirement to be ‘object of work’. As for the legal nature of bonuses, there has been no unified interpretation of the legal nature of bonuses, as various interpretations have been made since the past, including “the nature of merit compensation,” “the nature of life preservation,” and “the nature of wage payment.” In the meantime, a dispute that started with regular wages has been expanding to the entire wage since the recent ruling that the bonuses of public corporations amounts to wages. Meanwhile, Japan, which is similar to Korea’s labor legislation and wage system, seems to have similar concerns. For example, Japan’s Labor Standards Act has definition of average wages, including wages, and the calculation standards are very similar. In addition, Japanese companies pay bonuses twice a year—in winter and summer, and it is true that there is a theory about whether to regard them as wages subject to labor. As such, despite various discussions in Japan on the legal nature of bonuses, disputes over them have rarely occurred in practice. Why is that for? The answer is surprisingly simple. The first is that unlike Korea, wages exceeding one month’s payment cycle are excluded from the calculation list in Japan. Second, when calculating average wages, wages that exceed three months’ pay cycle are excluded from the list, and for most Japanese companies, bonuses are paid in excess of that cycle, so that is not a problem. However, in Japan, bonuses are generally paid twice—in summer and winter, which are different from Korea, and in the case of management incentives, they are included in bonuses and paid separately. Therefore, there is a limit to simply comparing Japan’s wage system with Korea’s wage system. Nevertheless, I think the method of setting a certain payment cycle at the time of calculation to prevent confusion in practice over various wages suggests a lot to us. 상여금(경영성과급)이 임금에 해당하는지의 여부를 둘러싸고 논란이 많다. 어떤 금품이 임금에 해당하기 위해서는 사용자가 ‘근로의 대상’이라는 요건을 충족할 필요가 있다. 상여금의 법적 성격에 대해서는 종전부터 ‘공로 보상적 성격’을 비롯하여 ‘생활 보전적 성격’ 및 ‘임금 후불적 성격’ 등 다양한해석이 이루어져온 만큼, 통일된 해석이 없었다. 그러던 중 최근에는 공기업의 경영성과급을 임금에 해당한다는 판결이 나오면서 통상임금에서 시작된 분쟁이 임금 전체로 전선을 확대하고 있는 형국이다. 한편 우리나라의 노동법제 및 임금체계와 비슷한 일본에서도 우리와 비슷한 고민을 하고 있는 듯하다, 예를 들어 일본의 노동기준법은 임금을 비롯하여 평균임금에 대한 정의규정을 두고 있으며, 산정기준도 매우 흡사하다. 또한 일본기업은 동계와 하계 연2회 상여금(경영성과급 포함)을 지급하고 있는데, 이를 노동의 대상인 임금으로 볼 것인가에 대해서는 이론(異論)이 있는 것도 사실이다. 이와 같이 일본에서도 상여금의 법적 성격에 대해서는 다양한 논의가 있음에도 불구하고, 이를 둘러싼 분쟁은 실무상 거의 발생하지 않고 있다. 그 이유는 무엇일까? 해답은 의외로 간단하다. 첫째는 일본에서는 우리나라와는 달리 통상임금 및 최저임금 산정 시에 1개월의 지급주기를 초과하는 임금에 대해서는 산정대상에서 제외하고 있다는 점이다. 둘째는 평균임금을 산정할 때 지급주기가 3개월을 초과하는 임금은 그 대상에서 제외하고 있으며, 대부분의 일본기업의 경우 이 주기를 초과하여 상여금을 지급하고 있기 때문에 그다지 문제가 되지 않는다. 다만, 일본에서는 상여금을 우리나라와는 달리 하계 및 동계로 2회에 나누어 지급하는 경우가 일반적이며, 경영성과급의 경우에도 상여금에 포함시켜 지급하는 경우와 이와는 별도로 지급하는 경우 등매우 다양하다. 따라서 일본의 임금제도를 우리나라의 임금제도와 단순비교하기에는 한계가 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 각종 임금을 둘러싼 실무상의 혼선을 방지하기 위해 산정 시에 일정한 지급주기를설정하는 방식은 우리에게 많은 것을 시사해주고 있다고 생각한다.

경영성과급의 임금성에 관한 소고* ―하급심 판결 사례를 중심으로―

양주열 노동법이론실무학회 2023 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.38

'Wages' refers to the money and valuables that workers receive in return for providing work after signing a labor contract. However, from a company's point of view, wages are one of the 'expenses' that companies spend on a fixed basis in the business they run, and the rest excluding this is the 'performance' achieved through business activities and can be evaluated as a company's profit. If so, it is questionable whether the 'performance' as a result of these business and management activities achieved by the company can be called 'wage' if the company itself shares or distributes it to the workers. Recently, the Supreme Court issued a ruling recognizing performance-based incentives for management evaluation of public institutions as wages, and as a result, disputes have arisen claiming additional severance pay, arguing that the management incentives for business activities paid by general private companies are also wages. This kind of Court Decisions on the wages of performance-related incentives immediately affect other items that companies have already spent as 'wages', such as retirement benefits and shutdown allowance, furthermore, it has a great impact on corporate business activities in that it is subject to various regulations under the Labor Standards Act, such as regulations on payment methods and regulations on delayed payment of wages. Management incentives are paid in various forms and methods due to various factors such as the business conditions of each company, changes in the wage system and system, market environment, labor-management relations, and changes in transaction and payment methods, Recently. If so, questions such as "Can the performance-based bonus paid through these different methods really be considered wages?" and "If it is wages, then there are no other problems." are able to only happened. As such, it is most important to understand what the essential content of porformancebased pay is when in determining preformance-based pay is wage or not. in determining the nature of performance-based pay, it is most important to understand what the essential content of performance-based pay is. Wages are a specific component of the criminal punishment provisions under various Labor Standards Acts. Therefore, what is included in the scope of wages among the money and goods paid by employers to workers must be clearly determined based on strict and specific grounds, and the interpretation must be made in a way that gives sufficient foreseeability to the perpetrators. In this respect, it seems reasonable to judge that the performance-based pay is wage or not based on the criteria of 'remuneration for labor' and 'close relationship with the provision of labor'. Although the Labor Standards Act is a law created to ensure and improve the basic living standards of workers by setting standards for working conditions in accordance with the Constitution in relation to the specific rights and obligations of employers and workers in labor relations, it cannot be denied that the basic basis of labor contracts is civil law and employment contract. Therefore, even in determining the specific concept and scope of wages, the basic principles of civil law cannot be violated. Ultimately, in determining whether performance-based bonuses are wage-worthy, it is not possible to recognize 'remuneration for labor' simply by citing the fact that they were paid continuously and repeatedly or that formally there are regulations related to them. Rather, it is necessary to determine whether wages are paid based on the core elements of 'remuneration for labor' such as ‘Whether the employer has substantial authority and discretion in determining the payment of actual business incentives’ or ‘What is the purpose or motive for paying performance-related bonuses’, or ‘What are the factors that can determine the specific amount or level of business incentives’ so on. Expanding the scope of interpretation of wages can on... 경영성과급에 대한 임금성 여부가 기업에게 있어 중요한 이슈가되는 이유는, 그것이 평균임금이나 통상임금 산정에 필요한 기준임금을 책정하는 것과 관련하여 기업에 예상치 못한 경제적 손실을 입힐수 있다는 점과 함께, 경영성과급이 임금으로 인정됨에 따라 임금 체불에 따른 형사책임의 부담 및 그에 따른 근로자들의 임금청구권 발생에 대한 쟁점, 근로기준법상 임금지급에 따른 법적 규제 가운데 임금의 통화지급 원칙에 대한 위반 문제 등 복잡한 법적 이슈가 함께발생하기 때문이다. 특히 임금은 여러 근로기준법상의 형사처벌 규정의 구체적인 구성요건 요소에 해당하므로, 사용자가 근로자에게 지급하는 금품 가운데 무엇이 임금의 범위에 포함되는가 하는 점은 엄격하고 구체적인 근거에 따라 명확하게 판단되어야 하며, 수범자에 대해 충분한 예견가능성을 부여하는 방향으로 그 해석이 이루어져야 한다. 그러한 측면에서 경영성과급의 임금성을 판단함에 있어 '근로대가성' 및 '근로제공과의 밀접한 관련성'을 기준으로 판단하는 것은 일견타당하다. 근로기준법이 비록 근로관계에서 사용자와 근로자의 구체적인 권리·의무 관계에 있어 헌법에 따라 근로조건의 기준을 정하여근로자의 기본적 생활을 보장 및 향상 시키기 위해 만들어진 법령이긴 하나, 근로계약의 기본 바탕이 민법상의 고용계약을 기반으로 하고 있음은 부정할 수 없으며, 따라서 구체적인 임금의 개념과 범위를정함에 있어서도 기본적인 민법상의 법리를 거스를 수는 없다. 결국,임금 또한 근로계약이라는 쌍무계약에서 당사자 일방이 상대방의 급부에 대한 반대급부로서 지급해야 하는 것이므로 쌍무계약의 견련성이 인정되어야 비로소 그 범위에 포함된다 할 수 있으며, 그러한 견련성을 보여주는 가장 핵심적인 징표가 바로 '근로대가성' 혹은 '근로제공과의 밀접한 관련성'이라고 할 수 있을 것이다. 그리고 이러한 임금의 범위를 특정하는 기준은 명확한 기준과 근거를 바탕에 두고 그내용을 구체적으로 알 수 있어야 하며, 특히 경영성과급의 임금성 여부를 판단함에 있어서도 단순히 계속적, 반복적으로 지급되었다거나형식적으로 그와 관련된 규정이 존재한다는 등의 사정만을 들어 근로대가성을 인정할 것이 아니라, 실제 경영성과급의 지급 결정에 있어실질적인 권한 및 재량이 사용자에게 존재하는지, 경영성과급을 지급하게 된 목적이나 동기가 무엇인지, 경영성과급의 구체적인 지급 액수나 수준을 결정할 수 있는 요소가 무엇인지 등 근로대가성에 대한핵심적인 사실관계를 바탕으로 그 임금성 여부를 판단할 필요가 있다. 임금은 근로자의 근로 제공 자체를 이유로 지급되는 금품이다. 그리고 이러한 임금의 범위는 노동력 제공 행위에 밀접하게 연계된 금품에 대해서까지 확대되어 해석될 수 있고, 지금까지의 대법원 판결또한 이러한 기본적인 태도 안에서 사용자가 지급하는 금품에 대한임금성 여부를 판단해 왔다. 그리고 이러한 원칙은 별도의 사회적 합의에 따른 입법이 존재하지 않는 이상 단순히 해석을 통해 함부로 변경될 수 있는 것이 아니며, 만약 이러한 기준이 흔들리게 된다면 오히려 노사관계에 있어 부적절한 영향을 미칠 가능성이 증가할 것이다. 임금의 해석 범위를 확대하는 것 또한 '근로자의 기본적 생활 보장 및 향상'을 위해 합리적인 범위 내에서 허용될 수 있는 것일 뿐이고, 그러...

통상임금제도의 변화와 과제

하갑래(Ha, Gap-Rae) 한국노동법학회 2012 노동법학 Vol.0 No.44

Ordinary Wages System became specified in decrees of the Labor Standards Act in 1980s". Administrative guidelines set detailed standards of the system based on the decrees and case laws were established under the standards. However, case laws evolved to revise many parts of administrative guidelines and recent court decision stated that fixed benefits were included in the ordinary wage. Accordingly, gap between case laws and administrative guidelines are getting widened and companies are getting puzzled due to burden of costs and litigation. In order to clear the dust in this murky situation, legislative approach is required to make case laws in line with administrative guidelines. Followings are the legislative measures required. First, include all wage items except for statutory benefits into ordinary wage. If the scope of ‘cash’ included in the ordinary wage is enlarged reflecting changed case laws, the level of ordinary wage will approach the level of average wage. Second, specifiy wage items not included in ordinary wage in the law to prevent level of ordinary wage from continuously changing according to the case laws. Third, lower the mark-up rate of statutory benefits to reduce the burden of companies whose productivity is not changed. Reform of ordinary wage system is not easy to implement due to its various effects. However, determined legislative moves are badly required, given labor and management conflicts and social costs caused by loss of standards in the labor market happening in ineffectiveness of current administrative guidelines.

통상임금제의 근본문제 및 포괄적 해결방안 검토

이선신 ( Seon Sin Lee ) 안암법학회 2013 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.42

These days, in Korea, there have been big controversies over the Ordinary Wage in the LABOR STANDARDS ACT. In fact, the problems of the Ordinary Wage had been included in the LABOR STANDARDS ACT since the Act was legislated after the model of Japanese LABOR STANDARDS ACT. And, despite of much efforts of the Judiciary and the Government officials and many legal scholars, the problems are not resolved yet and many law-suits have been filed and much legal arguments have developed into serious Labor-Management Disputes. Recently, Korean Government(the Ministry of Employment and Labor) has launched a committee which will deal with the agenda of the Improvement of Wage Institution. In this thseis, I`ve reviewed the fundamental problems of the Ordinary Wage and discovered several critical legal deffects in the LABOR STANDARDS ACT by way of comparing with the related articles in the Japanese LABOR STANDARDS ACT. For example, the Korean Act has the article about the definition of Ordinay Wage which was stipulated with several abstact and ambiguous concept-factors like "periodicity", "uniformity", etc. Besides, I`ve found that several abstact and ambiguous concept-factors like "periodicity", "uniformity", etc. have irrational points which are inappropriate to be used for building the definition-article of Ordinay Wage. For reference, the ENFORCEMENT DECREE OF THE LABOR STANDARDS ACT stipulates Article 6 as belows; Article 6 (Ordinary Wages) (1) For the purposes of the Act and this Decree, the term “ordinary wages” means hourly wages, daily wages, weekly wages, monthly wages, or contract wages which are determined to be paid periodically or in lump sum to a worker for his/her prescribed work or whole work. (2) In case of calculating ordinary wages under paragraph(1) at hourly rates, the amount shall be calculated pursuant to the following subparagraphs: 1. - 7. (omitted) (3) In case of calculating ordinary wages under paragraph(1) at daily rates, the ordinary wages shall be calculated by multiplying the number of contractual working hours per day by hourly wage rates prescribed in paragraph (2). And I`ve reviewed three best possible solutions for resolving the Fundamental Problems of the Ordinary Wage, and I`ve proposed that the Ordinary Wage System in the Act should be abrogated and a new alternative Criteria-Wage System should be entrusted with the Labor- Management Autonomy System as the Comprehensive Solution of the Ordinary Wage Problems. And after reviewing the Ordinary Wage System from the viewpoint of ``the essencial nature of wage,`` I`ve pointed out that the Ordinary Wage System is inharmonious(incompatible) with ``the theory of the compensation for the labor-management relation``. In the previous theses, I`ve proposed a new viewpoint about ``the essencial nature of wage.`` After reviewing the traditional theories about the essencial nature of wage(theory of the price of labor, theory of the price of labor-force, theory of two-split wage characteristics), I`ve proposed ``a theory of the compensation for the labor-management relation``, as my unique opinion, and that is a viewpoint, through which, perceiving the essencial nature of the wage as ``the compensation for the continuation of labor-management relation``. In conclusion, I`ve re-emphasized that the Comprehensive Solution which comprises the abolition of the Ordinary Wage System and the acceptance of the new alternative Criteria-Wage System prefering Labor-Management Autonomy should be adopted to resolve the Fundamental Problems of the Ordinary Wage.

통상임금 법리의 이원화(二元化) — 가산임금 외의 ‘다른 수당’ 산정시의 통상임금 법리 —

방강수 한양대학교 법학연구소 2019 법학논총 Vol.36 No.4

The dispute over ordinary wages, the main issue of the labor law, is precisely the ‘additional wage’ dispute under Article 56 of the Labor Standards Act. Although the 2013 Supreme Court en banc decision presented a long-term legal principle, the dispute over the scope of ordinary wages is complicated. However, ordinary wages are not used as criteria wages in the case of additional wages. It is also used for advance notice of dismissal pay, annual leave wages, maternity leave benefits, child-care leave benefits and the minimum limit of average wage(hereinafter referred to as ‘other allowances’). Under the Labor Standards Act of 1953, ordinary wages were used only for additional wages(Since 1961, the use of ordinary wages has been expanded to other allowances). In the first place, ordinary wages were born as a tool concept for additional wages. Ordinary wages for calculating additional wages need to be fixed in advance. The so-called ‘fixedness’ is needed. In this case, the ordinary wage must be essentially converted to a hourly wages. However, in the case of other allowances, fixedness is not necessary. Also, other allowances are not close to the hourly wage. Additional wages and other allowances differ in their history and function. Therefore, it is not necessary to equate the principle of ordinary wages in additional wages and other allowances. In the case of vacation or leave of absence, you may consider the period as working and pay the wages. There is no need to use the tool concept of additional wages. Rather, the use of tool concepts results in unreasonable results. Ordinary wages, which are the criteria wages for other allowances, include all wages ‘decided to be paid for contractual work’, except for overtime pay. Regular bonuses, holiday bonuses, homecoming fee, summer vacation expenses, etc., all of which were denied ordinary wages in accordance with the 2013 Supreme Court en banc decision, will also be included. The ordinary wage laws in calculating other allowances should be simplified. 노동법의 주요 이슈인 통상임금 분쟁은, 정확히 말하면 근로기준법 제56조의 ‘가산임금’ 분쟁이다. 2013년 전원합의체 판결이 장문의 법리를 제시했음에도, 통상임금의 범위를 둘러싼 다툼은 복잡하다. 그런데 통상임금은 가산임금의 경우에만 기준임금으로 사용되는 것은 아니다. 해고예고수당, 연차휴가임금, 출산휴가급여, 육아휴직급여, 평균임금의 최저한도 보장(이하 ‘다른 수당’)에서도 사용된다. 1953년 근로기준법에서 통상임금은 오로지 가산임금에서만 사용되었다(1961년부터 다른 수당으로 통상임금의 사용이 확대되었다). 애초에 통상임금은 가산임금의 도구개념으로 탄생한 것이다. 가산임금 산정을 위한 통상임금은 사전에 확정될 필요가 있다. 이른바 ‘고정성’이 필요하다. 이 경우 통상임금은 본질적으로 시간급으로 환산되어야 한다. 그러나 다른 수당의 경우에는 고정성이 반드시 필요한 것이 아니다. 또한 다른 수당은 시간급과 친하지도 않다. 가산임금과 다른 수당은 그 연혁이나 기능에서 차이가 있다. 따라서 가산임금과 다른 수당에서의 통상임금 법리를 동일하게 볼 필요는 없다. 휴가나 휴직의 경우에는 그 기간을 근로한 것으로 간주하여 임금을 지급하면 된다. 가산임금의 도구개념을 사용할 필요가 없다. 오히려 도구개념을 사용하게 되면 불합리한 결과가 발생한다. 다른 수당의 기준임금인 통상임금에는, 연장근로수당 등을 제외하고 ‘소정근로에 대하여 지급하기로 정한’ 모든 임금이 포함된다. 2013년 전원합의체 판결의 법리에 따라 통상임금성이 부정됐던 정기상여금・명절상여금・귀성비・여름휴가비 등도 모두 포함된다. 다른 수당 산정시의 통상임금 법리는 간명해야 한다.