초록 열기/닫기 버튼
상법상의 임원은 회사와 고용관계가 아닌 위임관계에 있다고 보아 민법 및 상법의 규정이 적용되고 노동법이 적용되지 않지만, 상법상의 이사가 아닌 상무, 전무 등의 명칭으로 불리는 비등기임원(집행임원)은 비록 실무상 임원으로 지칭된다고 하더라도 그 실질은 사업 또는 사업장에서 임금을 목적으로 사용종속적인 관계에서 사용자에게 근로를 제공하는 근로자에 해당하기 때문에 이들 비등기임원은 노동법의 적용을 받는다고 할 수 있다. 현재 다수의 기업에서는 임원퇴직금지급규정에 따라 상법상의 등기임원만이 아니라 비등기임원까지 포함하여 일반근로자보다 2배 내지 6배까지 높은 퇴직금지급률을 적용하여 지급하고 있다. 근로자성을 갖는 임원은 근로자에 해당하므로 노동법이 적용되고 이들 임원의 퇴직금에 관한 사항을 정하고 있는 임원퇴직금지급규정은 근로기준법상의 취업규칙에 해당한다고 할 수 있다. 임원 승진 시 기존의 근로관계를 단절하고 위임관계로 변경한다고 하더라도 그것이 유효한지는 그 실질을 보고 판단해야 한다. 여러 회사에 임원으로 겸임하여 각각의 회사로부터 퇴직금을 지급받는 것은 기여도에 비례하지 않는 비합리적인 보상이라고 평가된다. 근로자퇴직급여보장법상의 퇴직금차등금지규정도 근로자인 임원에게 동일하게 적용된다고 할 것이므로, 임원의 업무능력, 성과 등을 반영해 일반근로자보다 더 높은 보상이 필요하면 기본적으로 임원이 받는 보수(연봉)를 높게 설정하여 보상을 하는 방법으로 해결해야 하고 이와 별도로 임원의 퇴직금산정기준을 달리함으로써 일반근로자에 대해 중복적인 차등을 설정하는 것은 바람직하지 않다고 본다. 원래 퇴직금은 퇴직 이후 안정적인 생활을 보장하기 위한 노후대책으로서의 의미가 강하고 일반직원의 퇴직금에 비해 지나치게 많은 임원의 퇴직금은 경영이익 분배의 공정성의 문제가 제기될 뿐만 아니라 근로자 간 형평성에도 반한다고 본다.
As executive officers under the Commercial Act are deemed to be in a delegation relationship with the company, not an employment relationship, they are governed by the Civil Act and the Commercial Act instead of the labor law. However, non-registered executive officers holding such positions as a managing or executive director, despite being referred to as executive officers in practice, are subject to the labor laws because they are considered as workers who provide labor to an employer for wage purposes in a use-dependent relationship. Currently, in accordance with the executive retirement allowance regulations, many companies are applying retirement allowance rates that are two to six times higher than those applied to regular employees in paying retirement allowances to their executives, including not only registered executive officers under the Commercial Act but also non-registered executive officers. Since executive officers having an employee status are workers under Labor Standards Act, they are subject to the labor laws. Therefore, the executive retirement allowance regulations stipulating the matters relating to the retirement allowances of these executive officers can be said to correspond to the employment rules on Labor Standards Act. Despite the transition of the relationship between a company and its employee promoted to an executive officer into a delegation relationship after having severed the previous employment relationship, the validity of such a transition must be determined based on the actual substance of the relationship. A person holding concurrent positions in several companies as an executive officer and receiving retirement allowances from each of those companies is considered to be compensated unreasonably, disproportionate to his level of contribution. A provision for the prohibition of differentiation in the retirement allowance under the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits applies to executive officers having an employee status. As such, in a case where it appears to be necessary to provide executive officers with higher compensation than regular employees by taking into account their job performance and accomplishments, the executive officers can be compensated with a high salary. The overpayment of the retirement allowance to executive officers having an employee status by applying a high retirement allowance rate than those applied to ordinary workers, thereby discriminating against the ordinary workers, is undesirable. A retirement allowance is originally intended to ensure a stable livelihood after retirement. Excessive retirement allowance of executive officers having an employee status compared to regular employees’ retirement allowances not only raises concern with regard to fairness in the distribution of corporate profits but also goes against the equity principle among individual workers.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
retirement allowance, no differentials allowed, executive officers, executive directors, non-registered executive officers
