Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Severance must follow the pay rules, not merely the statutory floor
Supreme Court, Aug. 30, 2018, 2016Da228802 (judgment)
Case name: 퇴직금청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Must a family allowance and a special year-end bonus be counted in the average wage used to calculate intermediate severance, and may an employer exclude them so long as the severance it pays still exceeds the minimum fixed by Article 8(1) of the Wages on Retirement Guarantee Act?
Holding
In this case they must be counted. Whether a payment enters the average wage fixed as the basis of severance is a matter of reading the pay rules, taking account together of the workplace's payment practice, the circumstances in which the rules were amended and their contents, and on those materials the family allowance and the special year-end bonus fall within the average wage here. And where severance rules in a collective agreement or employment rules are in force at retirement, an employer must pay the severance calculated under them, with the minimum in Article 8(1) of the Wages on Retirement Guarantee Act operating only as a floor below which the employer may not fall, not as licence to pay less favourably than those rules provide.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러나 이것이 퇴직급여법의 위 규정이 정한 퇴직금액의 하한을 초과하기만 하면 퇴직금규정 등에서 정한 것보다 불리하게 퇴직금을 지급해도 된다는 뜻은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
However, this does not mean that, so long as the retirement benefits exceed the minimum amount of retirement benefits provided in the above provision of the Retirement Benefits Act, retirement benefits may be paid less favorably than what is provided in the retirement benefit provisions, etc.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원고 67, 원고 69, 원고 73, 원고 90, 원고 91, 원고 92 패소 부분과 나머지 원고들에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portions of the judgment of the court below in which Plaintiff 67, Plaintiff 69, Plaintiff 73, Plaintiff 90, Plaintiff 91, and Plaintiff 92 lost, and the portions as to the remaining plaintiffs, are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals of the defendant are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
근로자 퇴직 당시 시행하는 단체협약이나 취업규칙의 퇴직금규정 등이 있으면 사용자는 그에 따라 산정한 퇴직금을 지급해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
If there exist a collective agreement or retirement benefit provisions in the rules of employment, etc. in force at the time of the employee's retirement, the employer must pay the retirement benefits calculated in accordance therewith.
Factors
- 급여규정의 해석으로 가려지는데
- 사업장의 지급관행, 급여규정의 개정 경위와 내용 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 해석하여야 한다
- 근로자 퇴직 당시 시행하는 단체협약이나 취업규칙의 퇴직금규정 등이 있으면
- 다만 이러한 퇴직금규정 등에 따라 산정한 퇴직금이 근로자퇴직급여 보장법(이하 ‘퇴직급여법’이라 한다) 제8조 제1항이 정한 퇴직금액의 하한에 미치지 못하면 그 하한을 지급해야 한다
- 퇴직금규정 등에서 정한 것보다 불리하게 퇴직금을 지급해도 된다는 뜻은 아니다
Unofficial English translation
• is determined by the interpretation of the wage provisions,
• and must be interpreted by comprehensively considering various circumstances, such as the payment practices of the workplace and the background and content of the amendments to the wage provisions
• if there exist a collective agreement or retirement benefit provisions in the rules of employment, etc. in force at the time of the employee's retirement,
• provided, however, that where the retirement benefits calculated in accordance with such retirement benefit provisions, etc. fall short of the minimum amount of retirement benefits provided in Article 8, paragraph (1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Employees' Retirement Benefits (hereinafter the 'Retirement Benefits Act'), that minimum must be paid
• this does not mean that retirement benefits may be paid less favorably than what is provided in the retirement benefit provisions, etc.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1976. 10. 26. 선고 76다502 판결, 대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2005다25113 판결(공2007하, 1233)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 76Da502 decided October 26, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da25113 decided July 12, 2007 (Gong 2007 Ha, 1233)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2001. 3. 27. 선고 99다71276 판결(공2001상, 992) / [2] 대법원 1976. 10. 26. 선고 76다502 판결, 대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2005다25113 판결(공2007하, 1233)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the pay rules and the payment practice point in different directions on a particular payment, how is the balance to be struck in reading whether that payment enters the average wage?
A later Supreme Court decision on reading pay rules against payment practice, or on the scope of an employer's duty to follow them, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 8(1) of the Wages on Retirement Guarantee Act or to Article 2(1)(v) and (vi) of the Labor Standards Act on average wages, and the remand judgment of the Seoul High Court on these plaintiffs' claims.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
Both readings record the burden of proof as not addressed, so the flagged divergence lies in the form of the judgment standard rather than the burden: the primary reads it as a requirements statement and the independent as comprehensive consideration.
사업장의 지급관행, 급여규정의 개정 경위와 내용 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 해석하여야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the pay rules and the payment practice point in different directions on a particular payment, how is the balance to be struck in reading whether that payment enters the average wage?” vs Independent “What additional retirement-benefit amount is payable to each employee after the family allowances and bonuses are included?”
The primary asks how to weigh pay-rule text against payment practice when they point different ways, while the independent asks what additional severance is payable once the items are included.
그러나 이것이 퇴직급여법의 위 규정이 정한 퇴직금액의 하한을 초과하기만 하면 퇴직금규정 등에서 정한 것보다 불리하게 퇴직금을 지급해도 된다는 뜻은 아니다.Raw 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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 18 May 2016 (2016Na2007607), held that the family allowance and the special year-end bonus did fall within the average wage fixed by the defendant's pay rules as the basis of severance. It nevertheless held that the defendant's severance calculation was lawful, on the reasoning that even with those payments excluded from the average wage the progressive rates applied produced amounts that did not fall below the minimum guaranteed by the Wages on Retirement Guarantee Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error on the inclusion point, save some shortfall in the reasons, and rejected the defendant's appeal. On the plaintiffs' appeal it held that the employer must pay the intermediate severance calculated on the average wage with those payments included, applying the continuous service period and the rate agreed between labour and management, and that calculating severance contrary to the pay rules is not permissible even where the amount exceeds what the Act guarantees. The court below had misread the law on the duty to pay severance, so the portions of the judgment concerning the plaintiffs were reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court, while the defendant's appeal was dismissed in the same order.
Distinguishing conditions
- A workplace where the pay rules in force at retirement do not bring the payment in question into the average wage fixed as the basis of severance, since inclusion is decided by reading those rules.
- Severance calculated under the pay rules that falls below the amount guaranteed by Article 8(1) of the Wages on Retirement Guarantee Act, where the statutory floor must be paid instead.
- A case with no collective agreement or employment rules on severance in force at the time of retirement, since the duty the Court stated presupposes such rules.
Record verification notes
Read the version of the pay rules in force on the date of the intermediate settlement, together with Articles 3, 17 and 26 relied on here, and gather the payment history of the allowance and the bonus, since the Court decided inclusion on the practice as well as the text. Then compare the defendant's own calculation, including the progressive rates and the agreed conversion to single rates, with what the rules require, because the floor under the Act does not justify a lower figure than the rules produce.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 어느 사업장의 급여규정에서 퇴직금 산정의 기초인 임금에 상여금 등이 포함되는지 판단하는 방법 [2] 근로자 퇴직 당시 시행하는 단체협약이나 취업규칙의 퇴직금규정 등에 따라 산정한 퇴직금이 근로자퇴직급여 보장법 제8조 제1항에서 정한 퇴직금액의 하한에 미치지 못하는 경우, 그 하한을 지급해야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 위 규정에서 정한 퇴직금액의 하한을 초과하는 경우, 퇴직금규정 등에서 정한 것보다 불리하게 퇴직금을 지급할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [3] 갑 주식회사의 근로자인 을 등이 갑 회사와 퇴직금 중간정산을 하여 그에 따라 산정된 퇴직금을 받았는데, 갑 회사가 퇴직금을 산정하면서 매월 지급하던 가족수당과 특별상여금 중 연말상여금의 일부를 평균임금에 포함하지 않고 산정한 사안에서, 가족수당과 상여금이 갑 회사의 급여규정에서 퇴직금 산정의 기초로 정한 평균임금에 포함되는데도, 근로자퇴직급여 보장법이 보장한 금액에 미달하지만 않으면 가족수당과 상여금을 평균임금에서 제외하고 산정한 중간정산퇴직금을 지급해도 된다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The method of determining whether bonuses, etc. are included in the wages that form the basis for calculation of retirement benefits under the wage provisions of a given workplace [2] Whether, where the retirement benefits calculated in accordance with the collective agreement or the retirement benefit provisions in the rules of employment, etc. in force at the time of the employee's retirement fall short of the minimum amount of retirement benefits provided in Article 8, paragraph (1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Employees' Retirement Benefits, that minimum must be paid (affirmative), and whether, where they exceed the minimum amount of retirement benefits provided in the above provision, retirement benefits may be paid less favorably than what is provided in the retirement benefit provisions, etc. (negative) [3] A case in which B and others, employees of A Co., Ltd., entered into an interim settlement of retirement benefits with A Co., Ltd. and received the retirement benefits calculated accordingly, where A Co., Ltd., in calculating the retirement benefits, calculated the average wage without including part of the year-end bonus, among the family allowance and special bonus it paid monthly, and it was held that the judgment of the court below erred in misapprehension of legal principles in holding that, even though the family allowance and bonus were included in the average wage designated as the basis for calculating retirement benefits under A Co., Ltd.'s wage provisions, it was sufficient to pay the interim settlement retirement benefits calculated by excluding the family allowance and bonus from the average wage, so long as the amount did not fall short of the amount guaranteed by the Act on the Guarantee of Employees' Retirement Benefits
Summary of the holding
[1] 어느 사업장의 급여규정에서 퇴직금 산정의 기초인 임금에 상여금 등이 포함되는지는 급여규정의 해석으로 가려지는데, 사업장의 지급관행, 급여규정의 개정 경위와 내용 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 해석하여야 한다. [2] 근로자 퇴직 당시 시행하는 단체협약이나 취업규칙의 퇴직금규정 등이 있으면 사용자는 그에 따라 산정한 퇴직금을 지급해야 한다. 다만 이러한 퇴직금규정 등에 따라 산정한 퇴직금이 근로자퇴직급여 보장법(이하 ‘퇴직급여법’이라 한다) 제8조 제1항이 정한 퇴직금액의 하한에 미치지 못하면 그 하한을 지급해야 한다. 그러나 이것이 퇴직급여법의 위 규정이 정한 퇴직금액의 하한을 초과하기만 하면 퇴직금규정 등에서 정한 것보다 불리하게 퇴직금을 지급해도 된다는 뜻은 아니다. [3] 갑 주식회사의 근로자인 을 등이 갑 회사와 퇴직금 중간정산을 하여 그에 따라 산정된 퇴직금을 받았는데, 갑 회사가 퇴직금을 산정하면서 매월 지급하던 가족수당과 특별상여금 중 연말상여금의 일부를 평균임금에 포함하지 않고 산정한 사안에서, 갑 회사의 급여규정의 내용, 가족수당과 상여금의 지급 경위와 관행 등을 종합하면, 가족수당과 상여금은 갑 회사의 급여규정에서 퇴직금 산정의 기초로 정한 평균임금에 포함되므로, 갑 회사는 급여규정에 따라 을 등에게 가족수당과 상여금을 포함하여 산정한 평균임금에 계속근로기간과 노사 합의로 정한 퇴직금 지급률을 적용하여 산정한 중간정산퇴직금을 지급해야 하고, 갑 회사가 급여규정에 반하여 퇴직금을 산정하여 지급하는 것은 허용될 수 없으며 그 금액이 근로자퇴직급여 보장법(이하 ‘퇴직급여법’이라 한다)이 보장한 금액을 초과하더라도 달리 볼 것은 아닌데도, 퇴직급여법이 보장한 금액에 미달하지만 않으면 가족수당과 상여금을 평균임금에서 제외하고 산정한 중간정산퇴직금을 지급해도 된다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 원고 67, 원고 69, 원고 73, 원고 90, 원고 91, 원고 92 패소 부분과 나머지 원고들에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portions of the judgment of the court below in which Plaintiff 67, Plaintiff 69, Plaintiff 73, Plaintiff 90, Plaintiff 91, and Plaintiff 92 lost, and the portions as to the remaining plaintiffs, are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals of the defendant are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 근로자퇴직급여 보장법 제8조 제1항, 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 제6호 [2] 근로자퇴직급여 보장법 제8조 제1항 [3] 근로자퇴직급여 보장법 제8조, 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 제6호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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