Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Full offset of agency-paid wages, but not of the retirement allowance
Supreme Court, July 25, 2024, 2020Da287921 (judgment)
Case name: 근로자지위확인[파견근로자에 대한 퇴직금 공제의 범위가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the effect of deemed direct employment arose under the former Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers but the user employer never in fact employed the worker directly, so that the dispatched worker continued to provide labour to the user employer while remaining on the dispatch agency's rolls, must everything the agency paid in wages and the like, absent special circumstances, be deducted from what the user employer owes, and must the retirement allowance the agency paid also be deducted?
Holding
The user employer's wage obligation and the dispatch agency's wage obligation stand in a relation of imperfect solidarity. Unless special circumstances apply, everything the agency paid in wages and the like is deducted from the amount the user employer must pay, whatever the item, because no payment can be matched to a corresponding item. Retirement allowance is different: it also carries the character of a social-security benefit and of reward for service, and arises and is calculated differently from wages, so the two obligations are not in solidarity and equity does not require deduction; the allowance may be deducted only when the worker later claims it from the user employer.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이 경우 파견사업주가 지급한 임금 등의 세부 항목이 사용사업주가 지급하여야 하는 세부 항목 각각에 대응하여 지급된 것이라고 볼 수 없으므로 특별한 사정이 없는 한 부진정연대채무자인 파견사업주가 파견근로자에게 변제한 임금 등은 그 세부 항목을 가리지 않고 그 전부가 사용사업주가 지급해야 할 금액에서 공제되어야 하고, 동일한 세부 항목이나 동종의 항목별로 대응하여 변제가 된 것이라고 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
In such a case, since the individual items of the wages, etc. paid by the dispatching agency cannot be regarded as having been paid in correspondence with each of the individual items that the user company must pay, unless there are special circumstances, the wages, etc. that the dispatching agency, as an obligor under improper joint and several liability, paid to the dispatched worker must be deducted in their entirety, irrespective of the individual items, from the amounts that the user company must pay, and it cannot be regarded that the payment was made in correspondence with the same individual items or by corresponding categories of items.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The cost of the final appeals shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
특별한 사정이 없는 한 부진정연대채무자인 파견사업주가 파견근로자에게 변제한 임금 등은 그 세부 항목을 가리지 않고 그 전부가 사용사업주가 지급해야 할 금액에서 공제되어야 하고, 동일한 세부 항목이나 동종의 항목별로 대응하여 변제가 된 것이라고 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Unless there are special circumstances, the wages, etc. that the dispatching agency, as an obligor under improper joint and several liability, paid to the dispatched worker must be deducted in their entirety, irrespective of the individual items, from the amounts that the user company must pay, and it cannot be regarded that the payment was made in correspondence with the same individual items or by corresponding categories of items.
Factors
- 사용사업주가 지급하여야 하는 세부 항목 각각에 대응하여 지급된 것이라고 볼 수 없으므로
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한
- 퇴직금은 후불 임금으로서의 성격 이외에도 사회보장적 급여로서의 성격과 공로보상으로서의 성격을 아울러 가지고
- 발생 시점과 산정 방법도 임금과 다르므로
Unofficial English translation
• since they cannot be regarded as having been paid in correspondence with each of the individual items that the user company must pay,
• unless there are special circumstances,
• retirement pay has, in addition to its character as deferred wages, the character of a social security benefit and the character of a reward for service,
• and the time of occurrence and the method of calculation also differ from those of wages,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2024. 3. 12. 선고 2019다223303, 223310 판결(공2024상, 599)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2019Da223303, 223310 decided March 12, 2024 (Gong 2024 Sang, 599)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2024. 3. 12. 선고 2019다223303, 223310 판결(공2024상, 599)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would make a payment by the agency correspond to a particular item the user employer owes, so that only part of the wages is deducted?
A later decision treating the retirement allowance obligation of the two employers as a solidarity obligation, or a finding of special circumstances on records of the same shape, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 6(3) of the former Act, now Article 6-2(1)(iii) and (2), or to Article 413 of the Civil Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 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 Busan High Court, in its judgment of 29 October 2020 ((Changwon)2019Na10791), held that the plaintiffs, who had been employed by an in-house affiliate company and then dispatched to the defendant's plant where they worked under the defendant's direct direction and orders, including the plaintiffs engaged in in-house logistics and other indirect production work, were in a labour dispatch relation. It held that the plaintiffs' claims were not contrary to the principle of good faith, and that when computing the wage difference for the plaintiffs deemed directly employed, the part of the retirement allowance they had received from the affiliate company corresponding to the claim period had to be deducted.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the findings on the labour dispatch relation or on the principle of good faith. On the offset, it held that deducting even part of the agency-paid retirement allowance from the wage difference was wrong, because the retirement allowance obligation is not in solidarity with the wage obligation. Since the plaintiffs had not appealed and only the defendant had, the judgment could not be varied to the defendant's disadvantage, so the Court dismissed all the appeals and left the judgment below in place, with the costs on the defendant.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the dispatched worker claims a retirement allowance directly from the user employer, since the allowance paid by the agency may then be deducted.
- A case with special circumstances in which a payment can be matched to the corresponding item the user employer must pay, which the Court excluded only where such circumstances are absent.
- A case in which the user employer actually took the worker into direct employment, since the rule addresses the situation where the worker stayed on the agency's rolls and kept working for the user employer.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether the effect of deemed direct employment arose and the worker kept working for the user employer while remaining on the agency's rolls, since the rule presumes both. Then separate each payment into wage items and retirement allowance, because the two are treated differently, and note the posture: the outcome here, that the partial deduction was left standing, arose only because the worker did not appeal.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 파견근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률에 따라 직접고용간주의 효과가 발생하였으나 사용사업주가 현실적으로 직접고용을 하지 않아 파견근로자가 파견사업주 소속으로 계속 사용사업주에게 근로를 제공한 경우, 파견사업주가 파견근로자에게 변제한 임금 등은 그 전부가 사용사업주가 지급해야 할 금액에서 공제되어야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) 및 이때 사용사업주가 지급할 임금 등에서 파견사업주가 지급한 퇴직금도 공제해야 하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where the effect of deemed direct employment arose under the former Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers, but the user company did not actually directly employ the worker and the dispatched worker continued to provide labor to the user company as a member of the dispatching agency, the wages, etc. that the dispatching agency paid to the dispatched worker must be deducted in their entirety from the amounts that the user company must pay (in principle, affirmative), and whether the retirement pay paid by the dispatching agency must also be deducted from the wages, etc. that the user company must pay (negative)
Summary of the holding
구 파견근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률(2006. 12. 21. 법률 제8076호로 개정되기 전의 것)에 의하여 직접고용간주의 효과가 발생하였으나 사용사업주가 현실적으로 직접고용을 하지 않아 파견근로자가 파견사업주 소속으로 계속 사용사업주에게 근로를 제공한 경우, 사용사업주가 파견근로자에 대하여 부담하는 임금 등 지급의무와 파견사업주가 파견근로자에 대하여 부담하는 임금 등 지급의무는 부진정연대채무의 관계에 있다. 이 경우 파견사업주가 지급한 임금 등의 세부 항목이 사용사업주가 지급하여야 하는 세부 항목 각각에 대응하여 지급된 것이라고 볼 수 없으므로 특별한 사정이 없는 한 부진정연대채무자인 파견사업주가 파견근로자에게 변제한 임금 등은 그 세부 항목을 가리지 않고 그 전부가 사용사업주가 지급해야 할 금액에서 공제되어야 하고, 동일한 세부 항목이나 동종의 항목별로 대응하여 변제가 된 것이라고 볼 수는 없다. 그러나 퇴직금은 후불 임금으로서의 성격 이외에도 사회보장적 급여로서의 성격과 공로보상으로서의 성격을 아울러 가지고 발생 시점과 산정 방법도 임금과 다르므로 사용사업주의 임금 등 지급의무와 파견사업주의 퇴직금 지급의무가 부진정연대채무의 관계가 있다고 볼 수 없고, 형평의 원칙을 근거로도 사용사업주가 지급할 임금 등에서 파견사업주가 지급한 퇴직금을 공제해야 한다고 볼 수 없다. 다만 파견사업주가 지급한 퇴직금은 향후 파견근로자가 사용사업주를 상대로 퇴직금을 구하는 경우에 공제할 수 있을 뿐이다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The cost of the final appeals shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
구 파견근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률(2006. 12. 21. 법률 제8076호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제6조 제3항(현행 제6조의2 제1항 제3호, 제2항 참조), 민법 제413조
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