Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Wages already paid and a union's retroactive collective agreement
Supreme Court, Oct. 31, 2019, 2016Da31831 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 부당이득금등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a company recover from individual drivers, without their individual consent or authorisation, the increase in daily takings that a collective wage agreement made by their union applied retroactively to wages already paid?
Holding
No. Wages already paid, or whose right to payment has already arisen concretely, have passed into the worker's private property sphere, so a union may not dispose of them by a collective agreement alone without each worker's individual consent or authorisation. That applies equally where the union first agreed with the employer that a later collective agreement would take effect from an earlier date and then concluded an agreement unfavourably changing wage conditions, so that wages already paid had to be returned; here the obligation to pay the increased daily takings did not arise retroactively.
Points at issue, verbatim
개별 근로자의 동의나 수권을 받지 아니한 이상 갑 회사와 노동조합이 체결한 위 합의 및 임금협정에 따른 을 등의 사납금 인상분 지급의무가 소급하여 발생하지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case in which it was held that, absent the consent or authorization of individual employees, the obligation of B and others to pay the increased amount of the daily revenue remittance under the above agreement and wage agreement entered into between Company A and the labor union does not arise retroactively.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고들 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 전주지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the part where the defendants lost, and the case as to this part is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Jeonju District Court.
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
Absent the consent or authorization obtained from the employees individually, the labor union cannot, by a collective agreement with the employer alone, make a disposition such as the return, waiver, or deferral of payment thereof
Factors
- 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
- 노동조합이 사용자와 향후 단체협약이 체결될 경우 그 효력을 특정 시점으로 소급하기로 하는 내용의 합의를 한 이후
- 임금에 관한 근로조건을 불리하게 변경하는 내용으로 단체협약을 체결함에 따라
Unofficial English translation
• With respect to wages that have actually been paid or as to which a concrete claim to payment has already arisen
• Whether a labor union may, solely on the basis of a collective agreement entered into with the employer without the individual consent or authorization of the employees, make a disposition such as the return, waiver, or deferral of payment thereof
• After the labor union and the employer reached an agreement to the effect that, if a collective agreement is entered into in the future, its effect will be made retroactive to a specific point in time
• By entering into a collective agreement containing terms that change the working conditions as to wages disadvantageously
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), 대법원 2019. 10. 18. 선고 2015다60207 판결(공2019하, 2100)
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), Supreme Court Decision 2015Da60207 decided October 18, 2019 (Gong 2019 Ha, 2100)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2000. 9. 29. 선고 99다67536 판결(공2000하, 2195), 대법원 2010. 1. 28. 선고 2009다76317 판결(공2010상, 418), 대법원 2019. 10. 18. 선고 2015다60207 판결(공2019하, 2100)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the individual drivers later ratified the retroactive-application agreement, would their obligation to pay the increased daily takings then arise retroactively?
The remand judgment of the collegiate panel of the Jeonju District Court, once it is delivered, will show how the rule was applied to these facts. A later decision on the scope of the principle of party autonomy or the normative effect of collective agreements, or an amendment to Articles 29 and 33 of the Labour Relations Adjustment Act or Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the individual drivers later ratified the retroactive-application agreement, would their obligation to pay the increased daily takings then arise retroactively?” vs Independent “What form and degree of specificity would suffice for an employee's individual consent to retroactive repayment?”
The primary asks whether later ratification would make the obligation retroactive, while the independent asks what form and specificity individual consent must take. Both concern individual consent, but they target different points.
개별 근로자의 동의나 수권을 받지 아니한 이상 갑 회사와 노동조합이 체결한 위 합의 및 임금협정에 따른 을 등의 사납금 인상분 지급의무가 소급하여 발생하지 않는다고 한 사례Raw 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 29 June 2016 (2014Na2412), accepted the company's claim for the increase in daily takings. It held that the union's retroactive-application agreement was not manifestly unreasonable or outside the union's purpose, and was not a disposal act over wages for which a payment claim had concretely arisen, so it was effective without the workers' individual consent or authorisation, and that the rule in Supreme Court Decision 2009Da76317 did not apply where such an agreement existed.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that wages already paid had passed into the worker's private property sphere, so a collective agreement alone cannot dispose of them without individual consent or authorisation, and that this applies where a retroactive-application agreement precedes an unfavourable wage agreement that causes the return of wages already paid. It found that the court below had decided contrary to Supreme Court precedent on the scope of the principle of party autonomy and on the normative effect of collective agreements, which affected the outcome, and reversed the portion in which the defendants lost, remanding it to a collegiate panel of the Jeonju District Court. It separately held that the appeal grounds alleging a breach of the rules of evidence and a misinterpretation of the 2011 wage agreement were not admissible grounds, because this is a small-claims case to which the Small Claims Trial Act applies.
Distinguishing conditions
- Wages whose right to payment has not yet concretely arisen, since the rule governs wages that have passed into the worker's private property sphere.
- A case in which each worker gave individual consent or authorisation to the retroactive change, so that the union's disposal was authorised.
- A retroactive agreement that does not result in the return of wages already paid, such as a change that is not unfavourable to the workers.
Record verification notes
Confirm from the record which wages were in fact paid under the 2008 wage agreement before the 2011 agreement, and for which days between July 2010 and July 2011 the defendants worked, since the claim is the daily increase multiplied by actual working days. Then check whether any individual consent or authorisation by the defendants exists, and whether the union's agreement excluded the effect of the retroactive-application agreement when it concluded the 2011 agreement. Also note that Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, newly enacted on 27 December 2007, applied in cities from 1 July 2010, which fixed the date to which the parties agreed to go back.
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) 및 이러한 법리는 노동조합이 사용자와 향후 단체협약이 체결될 경우 그 효력을 특정 시점으로 소급하기로 하는 내용의 합의를 한 이후 임금에 관한 근로조건을 불리하게 변경하는 내용으로 단체협약을 체결함에 따라 현실적으로 이미 근로자에게 지급된 임금을 반환하는 결과가 초래되는 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용되는지 여부(적극) [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 갑 회사와 노동조합이 체결한 위 합의 및 임금협정에 따른 을 등의 사납금 인상분 지급의무가 소급하여 발생하지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, with respect to wages that have actually been paid or as to which a concrete claim to payment has already arisen, a labor union may, solely on the basis of a collective agreement entered into with the employer without the individual consent or authorization of the employees, make a disposition such as the return, waiver, or deferral of payment thereof (negative), and whether this legal principle applies equally to a case in which, after the labor union and the employer reached an agreement to the effect that, if a collective agreement is entered into in the future, its effect will be made retroactive to a specific point in time, they enter into a collective agreement containing terms that change the working conditions as to wages disadvantageously, with the result that wages already actually paid to the employees are returned (affirmative) [2] A case in which Company A, a company engaged in the passenger transportation business using general taxis, entered into an agreement with a labor union organized by its taxi driver employees to the effect that 'upon the conclusion of a collective (wage) agreement, it will be applied retroactively from the date of enforcement of Article 6, paragraph (5) of the Minimum Wage Act, newly established on December 27, 2007, and the Company shall retroactively pay to the employees the difference in the increased monthly wages, and the employees shall retroactively deposit with the Company the transportation revenue corresponding to the increased difference'; the collective bargaining was prolonged, and Company A paid B and other taxi drivers wages calculated under the existing wage agreement; thereafter Company A and the labor union entered into a wage agreement containing terms shortening the scheduled working hours as compared to the existing ones and increasing the daily revenue remittance (sannapgeum); and Company A sought, against B and others, the retroactive return of the increased amount of the daily revenue remittance pursuant to the above agreement, in which it was held that, absent the consent or authorization of individual employees, the obligation of B and others to pay the increased amount of the daily revenue remittance under the above agreement and wage agreement entered into between Company A and the labor union does not arise retroactively
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 피고들 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 전주지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the part where the defendants lost, and the case as to this part is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Jeonju District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제29조, 제33조 [2] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제29조, 제33조, 최저임금법 제6조 제5항
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