Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Union's power over wages already paid without each worker's consent
Supreme Court, Oct. 18, 2019, 2015Da60207 (judgment)
Case name: 부당이득금등반환
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a labour union, without the individual consent or authorisation of each worker, by a collective agreement alone with the employer return, waive or defer wages that have actually been paid or whose concrete claim to payment has already arisen?
Holding
No. Wages already paid, or whose claim to payment has already arisen concretely, have moved into the worker's private property sphere and are left to the worker's own disposal, so a collective agreement with the employer cannot by itself dispose of them. On these facts, the union could not, by the August 2010 agreement and the 2011 wage agreement alone, make the taxi drivers repay the employer, retroactively from 1 July 2010, the daily remittance increase of KRW 4,000, and the court below erred in holding otherwise.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
현실적으로 지급되었거나 이미 구체적으로 지급청구권이 발생한 임금은 근로자의 사적 재산영역으로 옮겨져 근로자의 처분에 맡겨진 것이기 때문에 노동조합이 근로자들로부터 개별적인 동의나 수권을 받지 않는 이상, 사용자와 사이의 단체협약만으로 이에 대한 반환이나 포기 및 지급유예와 같은 처분행위를 할 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Wages that have actually been paid or for which a concrete claim to payment has already arisen have been transferred into the employee's sphere of private property and left to the employee's disposition; therefore, unless the labor union has obtained the individual consent or authorization of the employees, it cannot, solely on the basis of a collective bargaining agreement with the employer, make dispositions such as return, waiver, or deferral of payment with respect thereto.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 전주지방법원 합의부에 환송한다. 피고(선정당사자)의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in the part where the defendant lost, and this part of the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Jeonju District Court. The defendant's (selected party) final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
노동조합이 근로자들로부터 개별적인 동의나 수권을 받지 않는 이상, 사용자와 사이의 단체협약만으로 이에 대한 반환이나 포기 및 지급유예와 같은 처분행위를 할 수는 없다
Unofficial English translation
unless the labor union has obtained the individual consent or authorization of the employees, it cannot, solely on the basis of a collective bargaining agreement with the employer, make dispositions such as return, waiver, or deferral of payment with respect thereto
Factors
- 현실적으로 지급되었거나 이미 구체적으로 지급청구권이 발생한 임금은
- 근로자의 사적 재산영역으로 옮겨져 근로자의 처분에 맡겨진 것이기 때문에
- 노동조합이 근로자들로부터 개별적인 동의나 수권을 받지 않는 이상
- 사용자와 사이의 단체협약만으로 이에 대한 반환이나 포기 및 지급유예와 같은 처분행위를 할 수는 없다
Unofficial English translation
• Wages that have actually been paid or for which a concrete claim to payment has already arisen are
• transferred into the employee's sphere of private property and left to the employee's disposition; therefore,
• unless the labor union has obtained the individual consent or authorization of the employees,
• it cannot, solely on the basis of a collective bargaining agreement with the employer, make dispositions such as return, waiver, or deferral of payment with respect thereto
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2000. 9. 29. 선고 99다67536 판결(공2000하, 2195), 대법원 2010. 1. 28. 선고 2009다76317 판결(공2010상, 418)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 99Da67536 decided September 29, 2000 (Gong 2000 Ha, 2195), Supreme Court Decision 2009Da76317 decided January 28, 2010 (Gong 2010 Sang, 418)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2000. 9. 29. 선고 99다67536 판결(공2000하, 2195), 대법원 2010. 1. 28. 선고 2009다76317 판결(공2010상, 418)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does a general mandate given by workers to the union, either individually or through a clause in the collective agreement authorising the union to settle such claims, amount to the consent or authorisation the rule requires?
The remand judgment of the full panel of the Jeonju District Court will show how the rule is applied to individual consent and authorisation on this record. A later Supreme Court decision treating the normative effect of collective agreements differently, or an amendment to Article 29 or Article 33 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The original text states a general rule on accrued wages and then decides the taxi remittance facts, so one reading treats it as stating requirements and the other as applying law to facts.
개별 근로자의 동의나 수권을 받지 아니한 이상 노동조합이 위 합의 및 임금협정만으로 이미 을 등에게 지급된 임금 중 일부를 사납금 인상분이라는 명목으로 갑 회사에 소급하여 반환하기로 하는 내용의 처분행위를 할 수는 없는데도Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Jeonju District Court, in its judgment of 23 July 2015 (2014Na4395), found the agreement concluded around August 2010 between the plaintiff taxi company and the union to be genuine. It held that the remittance increase of KRW 4,000 a day under the 2011 wage agreement was to apply retroactively under that agreement, and granted the company's claim that the defendants repay the increase for the days they actually worked from 1 July 2010 to 31 July 2011.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the finding that the agreement was genuine, but held that the court below had misread the law on the scope of the principle of autonomy in collective bargaining and on the normative effect of collective agreements. Since wages already paid belong to the workers' private property, the union could not without each worker's consent or authorisation dispose of them by the agreement and the wage agreement alone, so the retroactive payment obligation could not be held to have arisen. It reversed the defendants' losing part and remanded the case to the full panel of the Jeonju District Court, and separately dismissed the designated party defendant's appeal, because that party had stated no ground for dissatisfaction in the appeal and had filed no statement of appellate reasons within the period allowed by Article 427 of the Civil Procedure Act, which under Article 429 requires dismissal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which each worker gave consent or authorisation to the union to dispose of the wages concerned.
- Wages that have not been actually paid and whose concrete claim to payment has not yet arisen, since the rule reaches only wages already in the worker's private property sphere.
- A dispute over the normative effect of a collective agreement on working conditions yet to be performed, rather than over the disposition of wages already paid.
Record verification notes
Ask first whether the claim reaches wages actually paid, and set each worker's pay record against the dates and amounts claimed. Then look for consent or authorisation given by each worker to the union for this disposition, since the union's own authority is not enough under the rule. Note also that this entry records a remand: the full panel of the Jeonju District Court was to decide the case again, and Article 29 and Article 33 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act were the provisions cited.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 현실적으로 지급되었거나 이미 구체적으로 지급청구권이 발생한 임금에 대하여 근로자의 개별적인 동의나 수권 없이 노동조합이 사용자와 체결한 단체협약만으로 그 반환이나 포기 및 지급유예와 같은 처분행위를 할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 일반택시여객운송사업을 영위하는 갑 주식회사가 소속 택시운전근로자로 조직된 노동조합과 ‘단체(임금)협약 체결 시 2007. 12. 27. 신설된 최저임금법 제6조 제5항의 시행일부터 소급적용하되, 회사는 인상된 월 임금의 차액을 소급하여 근로자에게 지급하고, 근로자는 회사에 인상된 차액의 운송수입금을 소급하여 입금하여야 한다’는 내용의 합의를 하였고, 단체교섭이 장기화되자 갑 회사는 택시운전근로자인 을 등에게 종전 임금협정에 따라 계산한 임금을 지급하였는데, 그 후 갑 회사와 노동조합이 소정근로시간은 기존보다 단축되고 사납금은 인상하는 내용의 임금협정을 체결하였고, 이에 갑 회사가 을 등을 상대로 위 합의에 따른 사납금 인상분을 소급하여 반환할 것을 구한 사안에서, 개별 근로자의 동의나 수권을 받지 아니한 이상 노동조합이 위 합의 및 임금협정만으로 이미 을 등에게 지급된 임금 중 일부를 사납금 인상분이라는 명목으로 갑 회사에 소급하여 반환하기로 하는 내용의 처분행위를 할 수는 없는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, with respect to wages that have actually been paid or for which a concrete claim to payment has already arisen, a labor union may, solely on the basis of a collective bargaining agreement concluded with the employer and without the individual consent or authorization of the employees, make dispositions such as return, waiver, or deferral of payment (negative) [2] A Co., Ltd., which is engaged in the general taxi passenger transportation business, reached an agreement with a labor union organized by its taxi driver employees to the effect that 'upon conclusion of the collective (wage) agreement, it shall apply retroactively from the date of enforcement of paragraph (5) of Article 6 of the Minimum Wage Act, which was newly established on December 27, 2007, the company shall retroactively pay the employees the difference on the increased monthly wages, and the employees shall retroactively deposit with the company the transportation revenue corresponding to the increased difference'; as collective bargaining was prolonged, A Co., Ltd. paid wages calculated under the previous wage agreement to taxi driver employees such as B; thereafter A Co., Ltd. and the labor union concluded a wage agreement under which the prescribed working hours were shortened from those previously in effect and the required remittance amount was increased; and in a case where A Co., Ltd. sought from B and others the retroactive return of the increased portion of the required remittance amount under said agreement, in which case, absent the consent or authorization of the individual employees, the labor union could not make a disposition to the effect of retroactively returning to A Co., Ltd., under the name of the increased portion of the required remittance amount, a part of the wages already paid to B and others solely on the basis of said agreement and the wage agreement, yet the court below decided otherwise, and this case is one in which it was held that the reasoning of the court below was erroneous as involving a misapprehension of legal principles
Summary of the holding
[1] 현실적으로 지급되었거나 이미 구체적으로 지급청구권이 발생한 임금은 근로자의 사적 재산영역으로 옮겨져 근로자의 처분에 맡겨진 것이기 때문에 노동조합이 근로자들로부터 개별적인 동의나 수권을 받지 않는 이상, 사용자와 사이의 단체협약만으로 이에 대한 반환이나 포기 및 지급유예와 같은 처분행위를 할 수는 없다. [2] 일반택시여객운송사업을 영위하는 갑 주식회사가 소속 택시운전근로자로 조직된 노동조합과 ‘단체(임금)협약 체결 시 체결시점을 2007. 12. 27. 신설된 최저임금법 제6조 제5항의 시행일부터 소급적용하되, 회사는 인상된 월 임금의 차액을 소급하여 근로자에게 지급하고, 근로자는 회사에 인상된 차액의 운송수입금을 소급하여 입금하여야 한다’는 내용의 합의를 하였고, 단체교섭이 장기화되자 갑 회사는 택시운전근로자인 을 등에게 종전 임금협정에 따라 계산한 임금을 지급하였는데, 그 후 갑 회사와 노동조합이 소정근로시간은 기존보다 단축되고 사납금은 인상하는 내용의 임금협정을 체결하였고, 이에 갑 회사가 을 등을 상대로 위 합의에 따른 사납금 인상분을 소급하여 반환할 것을 구한 사안에서, 개별 근로자의 동의나 수권을 받지 아니한 이상 노동조합이 위 합의 및 임금협정만으로 이미 을 등에게 지급된 임금 중 일부를 사납금 인상분이라는 명목으로 갑 회사에 소급하여 반환하기로 하는 내용의 처분행위를 할 수는 없는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 전주지방법원 합의부에 환송한다. 피고(선정당사자)의 상고를 기각한다. 피고(선정당사자)의 상고로 인한 비용은 피고(선정당사자) 및 선정자들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in the part where the defendant lost, and this part of the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Jeonju District Court. The defendant's (selected party) final appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal by the defendant (selected party) shall be borne by the defendant (selected party) and the selecting parties.
Provisions referred to
[1] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제29조, 제33조 [2] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제29조, 제33조, 최저임금법 제6조 제5항
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger