Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Ordinary wage status of conditional bonuses and guaranteed minimum performance pay
Supreme Court, Aug. 28, 2025, 2020Da219454 (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·임금·임금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Do a condition requiring employment at a particular time or a minimum number of working days, or the fact that a bonus depends on work performance, by themselves defeat a wage's character as ordinary wage, and for a bonus representing the prior year's wage is the existence of a guaranteed minimum to be judged by that prior year?
Holding
No, in principle. A condition of employment at a given time, or a working-days condition set within the number of scheduled working days, does not by itself defeat ordinary wage status, and even where the worker fails to meet it the wage must be included when statutory overtime, night and holiday premiums are calculated. A pure performance bonus is not ordinary wage, but an amount guaranteed regardless of performance is consideration for scheduled labour; for a bonus representing the prior year's wage, whether such a guaranteed minimum exists is judged by the prior year, and if it exists it forms part of that prior year's ordinary wage.
Points at issue, verbatim
근무실적에 따라 지급되는 성과급이 통상임금에 해당하는지 여부(소극) 및 근무실적과 무관하게 최소한도의 일정액을 지급하기로 정한 경우, 그 최소지급분은 소정근로에 대한 대가에 해당하는지 여부(적극) / 전년도의 임금에 해당하는 성과급에 관하여 최소지급분이 있는지는 지급 대상기간인 전년도를 기준으로 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 최소지급분이 있다면 이는 전년도의 통상임금에 해당하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether a performance-based bonus paid according to work performance falls within ordinary wages (negative), and where it is agreed that a certain minimum amount shall be paid regardless of work performance, whether such minimum payment constitutes consideration for scheduled work (affirmative) / Whether, with respect to a performance-based bonus corresponding to the wages of the previous year, whether there is a minimum payment must be determined on the basis of the previous year, which is the period to which the payment pertains (affirmative), and if there is a minimum payment, whether it falls within the ordinary wages of the previous year (affirmative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원고 15, 원고 24, 원고 25의 퇴직금 증가분 청구를 제외한 나머지 부분을 모두 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고 15, 원고 24, 원고 25의 퇴직금 증가분 청구에 관한 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All of the judgment of the court below other than the claims of Plaintiff 15, Plaintiff 24, and Plaintiff 25 for an increase in retirement pay is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The final appeal concerning the claims of Plaintiff 15, Plaintiff 24, and Plaintiff 25 for an increase in retirement pay is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
통상임금은 소정근로의 대가로서 정기적, 일률적으로 지급하기로 정한 임금을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
Ordinary wages mean wages agreed to be paid regularly and uniformly as consideration for scheduled work.
Factors
- 특정 시점에 재직 중이어야 한다거나 일정 근무일수를 충족하여야만 지급한다는 조건이 부가되어 있다는 사정만으로 통상임금성이 부정되는지 여부(소극)
- 근무실적에 따라 지급되는 성과급이 통상임금에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
- 근무실적과 무관하게 최소한도의 일정액을 지급하기로 정한 경우, 그 최소지급분은 소정근로에 대한 대가에 해당하는지 여부(적극)
- 전년도의 임금에 해당하는 성과급에 관하여 최소지급분이 있는지는 지급 대상기간인 전년도를 기준으로 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
• Whether the character of ordinary wages is negated solely by the fact that a condition is imposed requiring that an employee be employed at a certain point in time or that the employee satisfy a certain number of days worked in order for payment to be made (negative)
• Whether a performance-based bonus paid according to work performance falls within ordinary wages (negative)
• Where it is agreed that a certain minimum amount shall be paid regardless of work performance, whether such minimum payment constitutes consideration for scheduled work (affirmative)
• Whether, with respect to a performance-based bonus corresponding to the wages of the previous year, whether there is a minimum payment must be determined on the basis of the previous year, which is the period to which the payment pertains (affirmative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2024. 12. 19. 선고 2020다247190 전원합의체 판결(공2025상, 267)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc Decision 2020Da247190 decided December 19, 2024 (Gong 2025 Sang, 267)
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2024. 12. 19. 선고 2020다247190 전원합의체 판결(공2025상, 267), 대법원 2025. 8. 14. 선고 2023다216777 판결(공2025하, 1635)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the pay regulations are silent on a minimum and the rates vary from year to year, what evidence can establish a guaranteed minimum payable regardless of performance for the target period?
The remanded judgment of the Seoul High Court, recalculating the ordinary wage with the terminal bonus included and the performance evaluation pay excluded, will show how the inclusion range of the wage and severance pay claims is fixed. Any amendment to Article 2(1)(v) of the Labor Standards Act or Article 6(1) of its Enforcement Decree, or a later Supreme Court decision on guaranteed minimum performance pay, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
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 7 February 2020 (2014Na2045667, 2045681, 2045674), held that the terminal bonus was payable only once at least 15 days were worked within the calculation period, so that it lacked fixity and was not ordinary wage. On the performance evaluation pay it held that the minimum portion payable even at the lowest grade, 95% up to the 2011 pay and 66% from the 2012 pay, had fixity and was ordinary wage of the year of payment. It rejected the defendant's claim that the amendment of the claims of 5 October 2018 was inadmissible, held that the interruption of limitation by the filing of the suit reached the added claims other than the severance pay increases of Plaintiffs 15, 24 and 25, rejected the good-faith defence, and dismissed those three plaintiffs' severance pay increase claims as time-barred.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the terminal bonus was a fixed sum of 400% of the payment standard amount paid in instalments at regular intervals and, despite the 15-day condition, was regular and uniform consideration for scheduled labour, so the court below had misread the law on ordinary wage. It also held that the performance evaluation pay was the prior year's wage with only its timing shifted to the following year, and that since the employee pay regulations set no minimum rate or amount and the rates moved from a minimum of 95% to a minimum of 66%, no guaranteed minimum could be confidently found by reference to the prior year, so the court below had failed to examine that point. It found no error on the claim amendment, the interruption of limitation or the good-faith defence, upheld the dismissal of the severance pay increases of Plaintiffs 15, 24 and 25, and reversed the rest and remanded it so that the ordinary wage is recalculated with the terminal bonus included and the performance evaluation pay excluded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A working-days condition set beyond the number of scheduled working days, which a worker providing scheduled labour in full could not meet.
- A performance bonus whose regulations set no minimum rate or amount and whose rate is determined only in the year of payment, so that no guaranteed minimum can be found for the target period.
- A severance pay increase claim whose three-year limitation had already run, as with Plaintiffs 15, 24 and 25.
Record verification notes
Set the exact wording of the condition in the collective agreement and pay regulations against the number of scheduled working days in the pay period, since the Court relied on the condition being one a worker could meet. Then fix which year the bonus belongs to by comparing its target period with its payment timing, and search every instrument, including the wage agreements, for a floor payable regardless of performance. Finally, confirm whether the defendant raised the limitation defence below, and whether any acknowledgment-based interruption argument was raised in the lower court, since the Court refused the plaintiffs' interruption argument first made on appeal.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 통상임금의 개념 및 판단 기준 / 특정 시점에 재직 중이어야 한다거나 일정 근무일수를 충족하여야만 지급한다는 조건이 부가되어 있다는 사정만으로 통상임금성이 부정되는지 여부(소극) [2] 근무실적에 따라 지급되는 성과급이 통상임금에 해당하는지 여부(소극) 및 근무실적과 무관하게 최소한도의 일정액을 지급하기로 정한 경우, 그 최소지급분은 소정근로에 대한 대가에 해당하는지 여부(적극) / 전년도의 임금에 해당하는 성과급에 관하여 최소지급분이 있는지는 지급 대상기간인 전년도를 기준으로 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 최소지급분이 있다면 이는 전년도의 통상임금에 해당하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The concept and criteria for determining ordinary wages / Whether the character of ordinary wages is negated solely by the fact that a condition is imposed requiring that an employee be employed at a certain point in time or that the employee satisfy a certain number of days worked in order for payment to be made (negative) [2] Whether a performance-based bonus paid according to work performance falls within ordinary wages (negative), and where it is agreed that a certain minimum amount shall be paid regardless of work performance, whether such minimum payment constitutes consideration for scheduled work (affirmative) / Whether, with respect to a performance-based bonus corresponding to the wages of the previous year, whether there is a minimum payment must be determined on the basis of the previous year, which is the period to which the payment pertains (affirmative), and if there is a minimum payment, whether it falls within the ordinary wages of the previous year (affirmative)
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 원고 15, 원고 24, 원고 25의 퇴직금 증가분 청구를 제외한 나머지 부분을 모두 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고 15, 원고 24, 원고 25의 퇴직금 증가분 청구에 관한 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All of the judgment of the court below other than the claims of Plaintiff 15, Plaintiff 24, and Plaintiff 25 for an increase in retirement pay is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The final appeal concerning the claims of Plaintiff 15, Plaintiff 24, and Plaintiff 25 for an increase in retirement pay is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 근로기준법 시행령 제6조 제1항 / [2] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 근로기준법 시행령 제6조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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