earticle

영어

In order to determine whether the incentive based on business unit performance evaluation is a wage that should be included when calculating the average wage, it is essential to determine whether it is paid in return for work. The remuneration for work means that there is a bilateral and considerable solid relationship between labor provision and wage payment. Such a solid relationship can be determined by interpreting the contents of the agreement between the parties, the purpose of payment of money, the calculation method, and the payment method and so on. And if it is impossible to determine through that method, it shall be determined supplementally and additionally whether the money has been paid continuously, regularly, and uniformly, and whether the employer is obligated to pay. We emphasized that the condition that it is paid only to the incumbent is usually a factor that excludes fixedness in ordinary wage and has a systematic status as a factor that excludes remuneration for work. We concluded that it was not right for the court to include the incentive based on business unit performance evaluation in the wages that are the basis for calculating the average wage. The grounds for this are as follows. (1) Even if the company's internal regulations stipulate incentive calculation and payment standards, this does not specify that the employer is obligated to pay. It only specifies the calculation and payment criteria. (2) The incentive varies depending on the achievement of management performance and the performance evaluation of business unit. In addition, both the achievement of the condition of achieving the management goal and the occurrence of the employer's obligation to pay when the condition is achieved are uncertain. (3) Each incentive is denied remuneration for work because of two reasons that it was not paid uniformly and that the condition that it is paid only to the incumbent is applied to incentive payments. (4) When paying each incentive, the regulation that requires the payment rate to be deducted by dividing the payment rate by month for the period not working can be evaluated as a factor that denies the remuneration for work. (5) Since it is difficult to say that employers and employees are clearly convinced that incentives should be paid when management performance is achieved, it cannot be admitted that the labor practice of workplaces that pay incentives has been established. (6) If the amount received varies greatly depending on when the average wage is calculated, it is difficult to regard this as ordinary income. Therefore, it does not conform to the basic purpose of the average wage system, ‘guarantee ordinary living wages.’ (7) Even if the employer withheld the tax on earned income when paying each incentive, it cannot be the basis for judging that the money is the reward for work. (8) The company's internal regulations stipulate that the purpose of incentive payment is to achieve management goals by encouraging labor motivation and encouraging efforts for collaboration, indicating that there is an agreement between the parties that the money is not paid for work.

한국어

최근 쟁점이 되고 있는 경영성과급의 임금성, 즉 근로 대가성 판단을 위한 이론적 기초를 세밀하게 재확인하고 각종 개념과 판단표지들을 전면적으로 재검토했다. 그리고 그러한 검토를 토대로 근로 대가성 판단에 있어서의 여러 개별적 쟁점들에 대한 결론들을 도출했다. 근로의 대가인지 여부를 판단하기 위해 근로제공과 임금지급이 서로 쌍무적, 대가적 견련관계에 있는지 여부를 확정해야 한다. 그러나 쌍무적 견련관계가 존재하는지 여부의 확정이 곤란할 경우에 검토되는 판단표지인 계속성, 정기성, 일률성의 의미와 체계적 지위를 검토하여 경영성과급이 평균임금에 해당할 수 있는지를 판단하기 위한 논증체계를 재확립했다. 경영성과급의 법적성격에 대한 본격적인 검토는 삼성전자 1차 사건 및 삼성디스플레이 사건과 삼성전자 2차 사건에 대한 각 법원의 판결을 주된 대상으로 했다. 그와 같은 과정을 거쳐, 경영성과급을 평균임금 산정의 기초가 되는 임금에 포함시키는 것은 타당하지 않다는 결론에 이르렀다. 그 근거는 ⅰ) 취업규칙상의 경영성과급의 산정 및 지급기준이 사용자의 지급 의무를 명시한 것이 아니라는 점, ⅱ) 경영성과 달성과 부서별 성과평가에 따라 지급 여부와 액수가 변동되고, 경영상 목표 달성이라는 조건의 성취 여부와 해당 조건이 성취되었을 경우 사용자의 지급의무 발생이 모두 불확정적이므로 대가적 견련관계를 인정하기 어렵다는 점, ⅲ) 재직자 한정 조항이 적용된다는 점, ⅳ) 월할차감규정은 근로 대가성을 부정하는 요소로 평가될 수 있다는 점, ⅴ) 근로자의 경영성과급 지급 청구권의 기초가 될 수 있는 관행의 존재도 인정할 수 없다는 점, ⅵ) 평균임금 제도의 기본 목적인 “통상의 생활임금 보장”이라는 취지에 부합하지 않는다는 점, ⅶ) 근로소득세를 원천징수했다는 사실이 그 금품이 근로의 대가라고 보는 근거가 될 수는 없다는 점 등이다.