Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Previous-year performance pay as fixed regular wage
Supreme Court, June 11, 2020, 2017Da206670 (judgment)
Case name: 임금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the payment or amount of a bonus depends on the employee's work performance in the previous year but it is paid in the current year, is it a fixed wage forming part of the ordinary wage of that current year?
Holding
Pay whose payment or amount is decided by performance in the period it is paid for generally lacks fixedness, but a guaranteed minimum, such as a set sum paid even at the lowest rating, is fixed pay. Where the previous year's performance decides whether and how much is paid as wages for the current year and that payment is certain for the current year, it is fixed pay of that year. Where, however, special circumstances show that it is previous-year pay with only the payment timing moved into the current year, its fixedness as previous-year pay is not recognised, except for a guaranteed minimum to that extent.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러나 전년도 근무실적을 평가하여 이를 토대로 지급 여부나 지급액이 정해지는 임금이 당해 연도에 지급된다고 하더라도, 전년도에 대한 임금을 지급 시기만 당해 연도로 정한 것이라고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에는 전년도에 대한 임금으로서의 고정성을 인정할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
However, even if wages whose payment or amount is determined based on an evaluation of an employee's work performance for the previous year are paid in the relevant year, where there are special circumstances warranting the view that they are wages for the previous year with only the time of payment set as the relevant year, their fixed nature as wages for the previous year cannot be recognized.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it ruled against the defendant, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
지급 대상기간에 이루어진 근로자의 근무실적을 평가하여 이를 토대로 지급 여부나 지급액이 정해지는 임금은 지급 대상기간에 대한 임금으로서는 일반적으로 고정성이 부정된다.
Unofficial English translation
Wages whose payment or amount is determined based on an evaluation of the employee's work performance carried out during the period to which the payment pertains are, as wages for that period, generally denied the quality of fixedness.
Factors
- 지급 대상기간에 이루어진 근로자의 근무실적을 평가하여 이를 토대로 지급 여부나 지급액이 정해지는 임금은 지급 대상기간에 대한 임금으로서는 일반적으로 고정성이 부정된다.
- 근무실적에 관하여 최하 등급을 받더라도 일정액을 지급하는 경우와 같이 최소한도의 지급이 확정되어 있다면, 그 최소한도의 임금은 고정적 임금이라고 할 수 있다.
- 내부평가급은 근로자별로 지급 대상연도(내부평가급이 지급되는 해의 전년도를 의미한다)에 근무한 일수에 비례하여 지급하도록 되어 있었고
- 퇴사한 직원은 전년도 근무일수에 비례하여 내부평가급을 지급받지만, 당해 연도에 입사한 근로자는 당해 연도에는 내부평가급을 지급받지 못한 사정 등에 비추어
Unofficial English translation
• Wages whose payment or amount is determined based on an evaluation of the employee's work performance carried out during the period to which the payment pertains are, as wages for that period, generally denied the quality of fixedness.
• Where a minimum amount of payment is fixed, as in the case where a certain amount is paid even if the employee receives the lowest grade with regard to work performance, that minimum wage may be regarded as fixed wages.
• The internal evaluation-based bonus was set to be paid in proportion to the number of days worked by each employee in the relevant target year (meaning the year preceding the year in which the internal evaluation-based bonus is paid), and
• in light of the circumstances such as that, while employees who left the company receive the internal evaluation-based bonus in proportion to the number of days worked in the previous year, employees who joined the company in the relevant year do not receive the internal evaluation-based bonus in the relevant year
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 12. 18. 선고 2012다89399 전원합의체 판결(공2014상, 236)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2012Da89399 decided December 18, 2013, en banc judgment (Gong 2014 Sang, 236)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2013. 12. 18. 선고 2012다89399 전원합의체 판결(공2014상, 236)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a bonus is calculated on both the previous year's and the current year's performance, how is its ordinary-wage status decided for each year?
The judgment of the Seoul High Court on remand, recalculating the overtime pay without the internal evaluation bonus in the current year's ordinary wage, will show how the rule is applied to the amount. A later decision on bonuses that mix performance periods, or an amendment to Article 2(1)(v) of the Labour Standards Act or Article 6(1) of its Enforcement Decree, 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 “Where a bonus is calculated on both the previous year's and the current year's performance, how is its ordinary-wage status decided for each year?” vs Independent “Did this internal evaluation payment contain a guaranteed minimum that should be included in ordinary wages for the previous year?”
The primary asks how to split ordinary-wage status for a bonus reflecting both years' performance, while the independent asks whether this payment had a guaranteed minimum for the previous year.
그러나 전년도 근무실적을 평가하여 이를 토대로 지급 여부나 지급액이 정해지는 임금이 당해 연도에 지급된다고 하더라도, 전년도에 대한 임금을 지급 시기만 당해 연도로 정한 것이라고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에는 전년도에 대한 임금으로서의 고정성을 인정할 수 없다.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 21 December 2016 (2016Na2076931), held that the internal evaluation bonus was paid on a yearly cycle, was paid to all staff, and had fixedness because the previous year's performance decided whether and how much was paid in the current year, so it formed part of ordinary wage. It also found the rank allowance, fixed monthly position pay, lunch allowance and transport allowance to be ordinary wages.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error on the rank allowance, fixed monthly position pay, lunch allowance and transport allowance. On the internal evaluation bonus it held that the payment plan made it proportional to days worked in the previous year, that leavers received it in proportion to their previous-year days while those hired in the current year received none, so it was previous-year pay with only its timing moved into the current year, and that treating it as ordinary wage of the current year misapprehended the law on ordinary wage and affected the result. Because the overtime pay had been recalculated together with the bonus and other items held to be ordinary wages, the Court reversed the whole of the defendant's losing portion and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A bonus whose payment or amount for the current year is certain, since the Court treats it as fixed pay of that year.
- A payment scheme guaranteeing a set sum even at the lowest performance rating, which counts as fixed previous-year pay to that extent.
- A bonus with no circumstances showing that only its payment timing was moved into the current year, so that it is not previous-year pay in that sense.
Record verification notes
Set the employer's payment plan against the dates of the performance year and the payment year, and check how it treats leavers and those hired mid-year, since proportionality to previous-year days decided the point here. Then look for any guaranteed minimum at the lowest rating, which survives as fixed pay, and recalculate the overtime pay separately, because the Court reversed the whole losing portion only so that the amount could be recalculated.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 근로자의 근무실적을 평가하여 이를 토대로 지급 여부나 지급액이 정해지는 임금이 고정적 임금으로서 통상임금에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 한국고용정보원이 공공기관 운영에 관한 법률에 따라 매년 전년도 경영실적에 대한 공공기관 경영평가를 받은 후 이에 따라 ‘경영평가성과급 예비비 및 자체성과급(내부평가급) 지급 계획(안)’을 만들어 ‘전년도 기준월봉 × 개인별 연봉등급에 따른 지급률’로 계산한 내부성과급을 소속 근로자들에게 지급하였는데, 한국고용정보원의 근로자인 갑 등이 내부평가급을 통상임금에 포함하여 재산정한 연장근로수당의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 갑 등이 지급받은 내부평가급은 전년도에 대한 임금을 지급 시기만 당해 연도로 정한 것인데도, 이를 당해 연도의 통상임금에 포함된다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Criteria for determining whether wages, whose payment or amount is determined based on an evaluation of an employee's work performance, fall within regular wages as fixed wages [2] A case where the Korea Employment Information Service, having undergone a public institution management evaluation of the previous year's management performance every year pursuant to the Act on the Operation of Public Institutions, prepared a 'Plan for Payment of Management Evaluation Performance Bonuses, Reserve Funds, and Self-Imposed Performance Bonuses (Internal Evaluation-Based Bonuses) (Draft)' and paid an internal evaluation-based bonus, calculated as 'previous year's base monthly salary × payment rate according to the individual's annual salary grade,' to its affiliated employees, and A, et al., employees of the Korea Employment Information Service, filed a claim for payment of overtime work allowances recalculated by including the internal evaluation-based bonus in regular wages, in which case the judgment of the court below, which held that the internal evaluation-based bonus received by A, et al. was included in the regular wages of the relevant year although it constituted wages for the previous year with only the time of payment set as the relevant year, was held to have misapprehended legal principles
Summary of the holding
[1] 지급 대상기간에 이루어진 근로자의 근무실적을 평가하여 이를 토대로 지급 여부나 지급액이 정해지는 임금은 지급 대상기간에 대한 임금으로서는 일반적으로 고정성이 부정된다. 그러나 근무실적에 관하여 최하 등급을 받더라도 일정액을 지급하는 경우와 같이 최소한도의 지급이 확정되어 있다면, 그 최소한도의 임금은 고정적 임금이라고 할 수 있다. 근로자의 전년도 근무실적에 따라 당해 연도에 대한 임금으로서 특정 임금의 지급 여부나 지급액을 정하는 경우, 당해 연도에 임금의 지급 여부나 지급액이 확정적이라면 당해 연도에 그 임금은 고정적인 임금에 해당하는 것으로 보아야 한다. 그러나 전년도 근무실적을 평가하여 이를 토대로 지급 여부나 지급액이 정해지는 임금이 당해 연도에 지급된다고 하더라도, 전년도에 대한 임금을 지급 시기만 당해 연도로 정한 것이라고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에는 전년도에 대한 임금으로서의 고정성을 인정할 수 없다. 이 경우에도 근무실적에 관하여 최하 등급을 받더라도 일정액을 최소한도로 보장하여 지급하기로 한 경우에는 그 한도 내에서 전년도에 대한 고정적인 임금으로 볼 수 있다. [2] 한국고용정보원이 공공기관 운영에 관한 법률에 따라 매년 전년도 경영실적에 대한 공공기관 경영평가를 받은 후 이에 따라 ‘경영평가성과급 예비비 및 자체성과급(내부평가급) 지급 계획(안)’을 만들어 ‘전년도 기준월봉 × 개인별 연봉등급에 따른 지급률’로 계산한 내부성과급을 소속 근로자들에게 지급하였는데, 한국고용정보원의 근로자인 갑 등이 내부평가급을 통상임금에 포함하여 재산정한 연장근로수당의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 위 지급 계획(안)에 따르면 내부평가급은 근로자별로 지급 대상연도(내부평가급이 지급되는 해의 전년도를 의미한다)에 근무한 일수에 비례하여 지급하도록 되어 있었고, 이에 따라 퇴사한 직원은 전년도 근무일수에 비례하여 내부평가급을 지급받지만, 당해 연도에 입사한 근로자는 당해 연도에는 내부평가급을 지급받지 못한 사정 등에 비추어, 갑 등이 지급받은 내부평가급은 전년도에 대한 임금을 지급 시기만 당해 연도로 정한 것임을 알 수 있는데도, 내부평가급이 당해 연도의 통상임금에 포함된다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it ruled against the defendant, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 근로기준법 시행령 제6조 제1항 [2] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 제56조, 근로기준법 시행령 제6조 제1항, 고용정책 기본법 제18조, 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률 제48조 제1항, 제10항, 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률 시행령 제27조 제4항
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