Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Rational reason for differing treatment of monthly-paid education public-service workers
Supreme Court, Feb. 4, 2021, 2019Da230134 (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: 임금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Was the defendant local government's different treatment of monthly-paid education public-service workers in paying the allowances, compared with grade-paid education public-service workers, differential treatment without a rational reason barred by Article 6 of the Labour Standards Act and Article 11(1) of the Constitution?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the explicit terms of a collective agreement must not be construed in a way unfavourable to workers, that differential treatment means treating a worker unfavourably in wages or other working conditions without a rational reason, and that an employer is in principle not permitted unilaterally to deprive workers of vested rights or interests by writing or revising new employment rules and to impose unfavourable working conditions. On these facts, differing treatment of the monthly-paid workers in paying the allowances was a measure protecting the vested rights of the grade-paid education public-service workers while new recruits were taken on under annual-salary contracts, so it had a rational reason. The appellate findings therefore contained no error of law on the rationality of discrimination under Article 6 of the Labour Standards Act or on the construction of the equal pay for equal value principle in Article 60 of the second collective agreement, and the appeals were all dismissed.
Points at issue, verbatim
갑 지방자치단체가 수당 지급에 관하여 월급제 교육공무직원인 을 등을 호봉제 교육공무직원들과 달리 처우한 것은 신규채용하는 학교회계직원의 고용형태를 연봉제 계약으로 변경하는 과정에서 종전의 호봉제 교육공무직원이 가지고 있는 기득의 권리나 이익을 보호하기 위한 조치로서 차별에 합리적 이유가 있다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case in which the treatment by A, a local government, of B and others, monthly-paid educational public service employees, differently from step-based educational public service employees with respect to the payment of allowances was held to be a measure taken to protect the vested rights or interests held by the existing step-based educational public service employees in the process of changing the employment type of newly hired school accounting employees to an annual salary contract, so that there was a reasonable reason for the discrimination, and the determination of the court below to that effect was held as just
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
‘합리적인 이유가 없는 경우’란 근로자가 제공하는 근로의 내용을 종합적으로 고려하여 달리 처우할 필요성이 인정되지 않거나 달리 처우하는 경우에도 그 방법·정도 등이 적정하지 않은 경우를 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
"Cases where there is no reasonable reason" refers to cases where, upon comprehensively considering the content of the work provided by the employee, the necessity of treating the employee differently is not recognized, or where, even though the employee is treated differently, the method, degree, etc. of such treatment is not appropriate.
Factors
- 명문의 규정을 근로자에게 불리하게 변형 해석할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
- ‘차별적 처우’의 의미 및 개별 사안에서 문제가 된 불리한 처우에 합리적인 이유가 있는지 판단하는 방법
- 사용자가 일방적으로 새로운 취업규칙의 작성·변경을 통하여 근로자가 가지고 있는 기득의 권리나 이익을 박탈하여 불이익한 근로조건을 부과할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
- 신규채용하는 학교회계직원의 고용형태를 연봉제 계약으로 변경하는 과정에서 종전의 호봉제 교육공무직원이 가지고 있는 기득의 권리나 이익을 보호하기 위한 조치로서 차별에 합리적 이유가 있다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• Whether an express provision may be interpreted in a transformed manner unfavorable to employees (negative)
• The meaning of "discriminatory treatment" and the method of determining whether there is a reasonable reason for the unfavorable treatment at issue in an individual case
• Whether an employer may unilaterally deprive employees of their vested rights or interests and impose disadvantageous working conditions by making or amending new rules of employment (negative in principle)
• A case in which the determination of the court below, that there was a reasonable reason for the discrimination because the differing treatment of monthly-paid educational public service employees from step-based educational public service employees with respect to the payment of allowances was a measure taken to protect the vested rights or interests held by the existing step-based educational public service employees in the process of changing the employment type of newly hired school accounting employees to an annual salary contract, was held as just
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2009다102452 판결(공2011하, 2327)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da102452 decided October 13, 2011 (Gong 2011 Ha, 2327)
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2020. 11. 26. 선고 2019다262193 판결(공2021상, 135) / [1] 대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2009다102452 판결(공2011하, 2327), 대법원 2017. 3. 22. 선고 2016다26532 판결 / [3] 대법원 2015. 8. 13. 선고 2012다43522 판결(공2015하, 1333)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where protecting the vested rights of grade-paid workers is accepted as the reason, what method or degree of differing treatment would be too great to be appropriate?
A later decision revisiting the rationality of differing treatment in the pay of education public-service workers, or a change to Article 6 of the Labour Standards Act or Article 34 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act, would call for this entry to be read again. The record would also need re-reading if the second collective agreement's equal pay clause were construed differently in a case turning on its own text.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 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 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 5 (factors), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary presents general requirements for a rational reason as the standard, while the independent applies the reasoning directly to the facts of this case, so the form of the standard is read differently.
종전의 호봉제 교육공무직원이 가지고 있는 기득의 권리나 이익을 보호하기 위한 조치로서 차별에 합리적 이유가 있다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “명문의 규정을 근로자에게 불리하게 변형 해석할 수 있는지 여부(소극) / ‘차별적 처우’의 의미 및 개별 사안에서 문제가 된 불리한 처우에 합리적인 이유가 있는지 판단하는 방법 / 사용자가 일방적으로 새로운 취업규칙의 작성·변경을 통하여 근로자가 가지고 있는 기득의 권리나 이익을 박탈하여 불이익한 근로조건을 부과할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) / 신규채용하는 학교회계직원의 고용형태를 연봉제 계약으로 변경하는 과정에서 종전의 호봉제 교육공무직원이 가지고 있는 기득의 권리나 이익을 보호하기 위한 조치로서 차별에 합리적 이유가 있다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례” vs Independent “수당 지급 / 신규채용하는 학교회계직원의 고용형태를 연봉제 계약으로 변경하는 과정 / 종전의 호봉제 교육공무직원이 가지고 있는 기득의 권리나 이익을 보호하기 위한 조치”
The primary lists three general legal principles (no unfavourable reading of explicit terms, the meaning of differential treatment, and limits on unilateral deprivation of vested rights) that the independent does not mention. Only the vested-rights measure and the conversion of new hires' employment form are shared, so the overlap is limited.
수당 지급Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where protecting the vested rights of grade-paid workers is accepted as the reason, what method or degree of differing treatment would be too great to be appropriate?” vs Independent “Does monthly-paid educational employment constitute social status within the meaning of Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act?”
The primary asks how far a differing treatment could go before it loses its rational basis, while the independent asks whether monthly-paid employment is a social status under Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act.
갑 지방자치단체가 수당 지급에 관하여 월급제 교육공무직원인 을 등을 호봉제 교육공무직원들과 달리 처우한 것은 신규채용하는 학교회계직원의 고용형태를 연봉제 계약으로 변경하는 과정에서 종전의 호봉제 교육공무직원이 가지고 있는 기득의 권리나 이익을 보호하기 위한 조치로서 차별에 합리적 이유가 있다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 16 April 2019 (2018Na2039424), held that the defendant local government's differing treatment of the monthly-paid education public-service workers in paying the allowances did not breach Article 60 of the second collective agreement on equal pay for equal value, nor Article 6 of the Labour Standards Act, Article 11(1) of the Constitution or Articles 103 and 104 of the Civil Act. It reasoned that the treatment was a measure protecting the vested rights and interests of the grade-paid education public-service workers, because new recruits as school accounting staff were being taken on under annual-salary contracts from 2007.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the legal principles set out in its decision, it held that the court below had not misunderstood the law on the rationality of discrimination under Article 6 of the Labour Standards Act, and that it had not misunderstood the construction of the equal pay for equal value principle in the collective agreement either. Because the differing treatment was found to have a rational reason, the further claim that being a monthly-paid education public-service worker is a 'social status' under Article 6 was rejected without further examination.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which no vested right or interest of grade-paid workers had to be protected when the employment form was changed to annual-salary contracts, so that no rational reason is shown.
- A case in which the employer's unilateral writing or revision of employment rules deprived workers of vested rights or interests and imposed worse working conditions, which the Court held is not permitted in principle.
- A case in which treating the workers differently was unnecessary or its method and degree were not appropriate, since the Court held that disadvantageous treatment without a rational reason takes either of those forms.
Record verification notes
Set against the file the text of the equal pay for equal value clause relied on, here Article 60 of the second collective agreement, and the substance and degree of each allowance claimed. Then gather the actual differences in employment form, job content, scope, authority and responsibility between the monthly-paid and grade-paid workers, and the reasons the local government relied on, since the Court assesses the reason against those decision factors. Also check how the change came about, because the Court referred to a rule that an employer is in principle not permitted to deprive workers of vested rights by unilateral revision of employment rules.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 단체협약과 같은 처분문서를 해석할 때 명문의 규정을 근로자에게 불리하게 변형 해석할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 단체협약이나 취업규칙에서 근로관계에서의 차별적 처우를 금지하고 있는 경우, ‘차별적 처우’의 의미 및 개별 사안에서 문제가 된 불리한 처우에 합리적인 이유가 있는지 판단하는 방법 [3] 사용자가 일방적으로 새로운 취업규칙의 작성·변경을 통하여 근로자가 가지고 있는 기득의 권리나 이익을 박탈하여 불이익한 근로조건을 부과할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) [4] 갑 지방자치단체가 설립·운영하는 중·고등학교에서 월급제 교육공무직원으로 근무하는 을 등이, 호봉제 교육공무직원과 비교하여 수당 지급에 관하여 차별적 처우를 받는다고 주장하며 갑 지방자치단체를 상대로 수당 차액 등의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 갑 지방자치단체가 수당 지급에 관하여 월급제 교육공무직원인 을 등을 호봉제 교육공무직원들과 달리 처우한 것은 신규채용하는 학교회계직원의 고용형태를 연봉제 계약으로 변경하는 과정에서 종전의 호봉제 교육공무직원이 가지고 있는 기득의 권리나 이익을 보호하기 위한 조치로서 차별에 합리적 이유가 있다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether an express provision of a written disposition, such as a collective agreement, may be interpreted in a transformed manner unfavorable to employees (negative) [2] Where a collective agreement or the rules of employment prohibit discriminatory treatment in the employment relationship, the meaning of "discriminatory treatment" and the method of determining whether there is a reasonable reason for the unfavorable treatment at issue in an individual case [3] Whether an employer may unilaterally deprive employees of their vested rights or interests and impose disadvantageous working conditions by making or amending new rules of employment (negative in principle) [4] A case in which B and others, who were employed as monthly-paid educational public service employees at middle and high schools established and operated by A, a local government, claimed that they were subjected to discriminatory treatment with respect to the payment of allowances as compared with step-based educational public service employees, and sought from A, a local government, payment of the difference in allowances, etc., in which the Supreme Court held as just the determination of the court below that there was a reasonable reason for the discrimination, on the ground that the treatment by A, a local government, of B and others, monthly-paid educational public service employees, differently from step-based educational public service employees with respect to the payment of allowances was a measure taken to protect the vested rights or interests held by the existing step-based educational public service employees in the process of changing the employment type of newly hired school accounting employees to an annual salary contract
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
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the appeal.
Provisions referred to
[1] 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제34조, 민법 제105조 [2] 헌법 제11조 제1항, 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제34조, 민법 제105조, 근로기준법 제6조 [3] 근로기준법 제94조 제1항 [4] 헌법 제11조 제1항, 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 제34조, 민법 제103조, 제104조, 제105조, 근로기준법 제6조, 제94조 제1항
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