퇴직금분할약정의 법리에 대한 비판적 검토 = Critical Analysis on Legal Principles of Severance Payment by Installment Agreement

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As the severance payment is imperative in our legal system, it is hardly appropriate to consider the severance payment by installment agreement, which is a contract for an employer to provide all or part of legal severance pay periodically along with the wage before the employee's retirement and for an employee not to ask for another severance pay after her retirement, to be valid.
Before we start, it is much more reasonable to distinguish whether there's a severance payment by installment "agreement" between the employer and the employee firstly and, if we find the agreement is exist, to distinguish between the case where the "severance payment" is substantially a part of the wage and the case where the "severance payment" exists separately to decide whether the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment from the employer against the employee is admittable.
In the latter case, assuming that we just follow present case law, there's no injustice when the severance pay already provided is the same as legal severance pay or less but unbearable injustice in terms of specific validity or labor protection when it exceeds legal severance pay because present cases impute the risk from severance payment by installment agreement which is mostly advantageous to employers to the employee, not the employer.
To solve this problem, we should see that the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the employee can only be sustained as much as legal severance pay, not all the severance pay already provided in the case where the "severance payment" exists separately from the wage and the severance pay already provided exceeds legal severance pay on the grounds of "good faith doctrine(estoppel doctrine)" or "principle of equity", which means some change of present case law.
Further, as for the setoff defense by an employer, it is not allowed when the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment can not be sustained. And even in the case where the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is admittable, in my opinion, we should not allow the setoff defense by the employer considering the principle of complete payment wages and there's no compelling reason to allow exceptions for it even allowing for the logic of precedents.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As the severance payment is imperative in our legal system, it is hardly appropriate to consider the severance payment by installment agreement, which is a contract for an employer to provide all or part of legal severance pay periodically along with the wage before the employee's retirement and for an employee not to ask for another severance pay after her retirement, to be valid. Before we start, it is much more reasonable to distinguish whether there's a severance payment by installment "agreement" between the employer and the employee firstly and, if we find the agreement is exist, to distinguish between the case where the "severance payment" is substantially a part of the wage and the case where the "severance payment" exists separately to decide whether the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment from the employer against the employee is admittable. In the latter case, assuming that we just follow present case law, there's no injustice when the severance pay already provided is the same as legal severance pay or less but unbearable injustice in terms of specific validity or labor protection when it exceeds legal severance pay because present cases impute the risk from severance payment by installment agreement which is mostly advantageous to employers to the employee, not the employer. To solve this problem, we should see that the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the employee can only be sustained as much as legal severance pay, not all the severance pay already provided in the case where the "severance payment" exists separately from the wage and the severance pay already provided exceeds legal severance pay on the grounds of "good faith doctrine(estoppel doctrine)" or "principle of equity", which means some change of present case law. Further, as for the setoff defense by an employer, it is not allowed when the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment can not be sustained. And even in the case where the employer's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is admittable, in my opinion, we should not allow the setoff defense by the employer considering the principle of complete payment wages and there's no compelling reason to allow exceptions for it even allowing for the logic of precedents.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 임의영, "형평성의 개념화" 2011

2 하경효, "퇴직금 분할지급약정의 효력과 분할 지급된 금원의 성격" 법학연구원 (63) : 1-35, 2011

3 김홍영, "퇴직금 분할지급과 형사책임 - 대구지방법원 2011. 6. 14. 선고 2011노74 판결" 한국노동법학회 (40) : 2011

4 곽윤직, "채권각칙(민법강의 Ⅳ)" 박영사 2005

5 "주석 민법, 채권각칙(5)" 1999

6 임상민, "재판자료 제118집: 노동법 실무연구" 법원도서관 2009

7 임창현, "월급에 포함하여 분할 지급한 퇴직금에 대한 중간정산으로서의 효력과 이에 대한 부당이득반환청구의 가부" 2009

8 김희성, "연봉제와 퇴직금 ― 월급에 포함된 ‘퇴직금 명목 금원’의 부당이득 성립 여부 ―" 한국노동법학회 (36) : 239-264, 2010

9 김가람, "노동판례리뷰, 노동리뷰"

10 이상윤, "노동법" 박영사 2013

11 임종률, "노동법" 博英社 2009

12 한국노동 법학회(편집부), "근로관계 존속중 퇴직금 분할 지급과 부당이득 - 퇴직금을 월급으로 분할하여 지급하기로 한 약정과 이에 기해 지급된 금원의 법적 성질 - (대법원 2010. 5. 27. 선고 2008다9150 판결)" (36) : 2010

13 김소영, "‘연봉에 퇴직금을 포함하여 분할 지급’하는 중간정산의 법적 효력" 한국노동법학회 (26) : 327-356, 2008