Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Ordinary wages, remand scope and separate allowance claims
Supreme Court, Sept. 11, 2025, 2021Da248893 (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
When only the defendant appealed a first-instance judgment granting part of a wage claim, what was the scope and monetary cap of the remand court's judgment, and did bonuses subject to employment or attendance conditions remain ordinary wages?
Holding
The part of the first-instance claim that the plaintiff lost became final when the pre-remand appellate judgment was pronounced. After remand, the court could decide only the defendant's losing part plus the amount by which the plaintiff expanded each claim, because each statutory allowance claim is a separate object of the litigation. Bonuses paid periodically and uniformly as consideration for scheduled work remain ordinary wages even when an employment or attendance condition is attached; such a condition alone does not defeat ordinary-wage status, and the mere uncertainty of fulfilment is not enough to exclude them.
Points at issue, verbatim
환송 후 원심에서 인용할 수 있는 한도액은 피고 패소 부분, 즉 환송 전 원심에서 인정된 금액에 환송 후 원심에서 청구가 확장된 부분을 더한 금액이므로 환송 후 원심의 심판대상은 이에 한정되고, 이를 초과하는 부분은 환송 전 원심판결 선고와 동시에 확정되어 소송이 종료되었으며
Unofficial English translation
since the maximum amount that may be granted in the court below after remand is the portion in which the defendant lost, that is, the amount recognized in the court below before remand plus the portion by which the claim was expanded in the court below after remand, the subject matter of adjudication of the court below after remand is limited thereto, and the portion exceeding it became final and conclusive simultaneously with the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below before remand, thereby terminating the lawsuit, and
Disposition
Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 원심에서 변경된 청구를 포함하여 제1심판결을 다음과 같이 변경한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and, including the claim amended in the court below, the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
법정수당 청구별로 법적 근거와 성질이 다르므로 별개의 소송물을 구성한다.
Unofficial English translation
Since the legal basis and nature differ for each claim for statutory allowances, each constitutes a separate subject matter of suit.
Factors
- 환송 후 원심에서 인용할 수 있는 한도액은 피고 패소 부분, 즉 환송 전 원심에서 인정된 금액에 환송 후 원심에서 청구가 확장된 부분을 더한 금액이므로
- 근로자가 통상임금이 잘못 산정되었다는 이유로 근로기준법상 통상임금을 기준으로 법정수당의 지급을 청구하는 경우
- 법정수당 청구별로 별개의 소송물을 구성하는지 여부
- 특정 시점에 재직 중이어야 한다거나 일정 근무일수를 충족하여야만 지급한다는 조건이 부가되어 있다는 사정만으로 통상임금성이 부정되는지 여부
- 소송물인 법정수당의 존부에 대한 것이 아니라 그 전제가 되는 법률관계에 관하여 판결 이유에서 판단한 것에 불과하여
Unofficial English translation
• Since the maximum amount that may be granted in the court below after remand is the portion in which the defendant lost, that is, the amount recognized in the court below before remand plus the portion by which the claim was expanded in the court below after remand,
• Where an employee claims payment of statutory allowances on the basis of ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act on the ground that ordinary wages were incorrectly calculated,
• Whether each claim for statutory allowances constitutes a separate subject matter of suit,
• Whether the character of ordinary wages is negated merely by the fact that a condition is attached requiring that the employee be employed at a specific point in time or that the employee complete a certain number of working days in order for payment to be made,
• Was not a determination as to the existence of the statutory allowances constituting the subject matter of suit, but merely a determination made in the reasons for the judgment concerning the underlying legal relationship,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 3. 26. 선고 2018다221867 판결(공2020상, 815)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Da221867 pronounced March 26, 2020 (Gong 2020 Sang, 815)
Decisions referred to
[1][2][3][4][6] 대법원 2025. 8. 28. 선고 2021다239134 판결(공2025하, 1757) / [1][2] 대법원 2020. 3. 26. 선고 2018다221867 판결(공2020상, 815) / [2][3] 대법원 2014. 6. 12. 선고 2014다11376, 11383 판결, 대법원 2016. 9. 23. 선고 2016다2925 판결, 대법원 2024. 3. 12. 선고 2022다4212 판결 / [6] 대법원 2024. 12. 19. 선고 2020다247190 전원합의체 판결(공2025상, 267), 대법원 2024. 12. 19. 선고 2023다302838 전원합의체 판결(공2025상, 307)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If an attendance condition requires work beyond scheduled workdays or excludes pay for work already performed, can the payment still satisfy the ordinary-wage criteria?
Any later decision altering the rule that each statutory allowance is a separate object of litigation, or the rule that employment and attendance conditions do not by themselves defeat ordinary-wage status, would require this entry to be read again. A remand file giving the amounts found and expanded for each allowance would also change the cap, as would an amendment to Article 2(1)(v) of the Labour Standards Act or Article 6(1) of its Enforcement Decree.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 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 an attendance condition requires work beyond scheduled workdays or excludes pay for work already performed, can the payment still satisfy the ordinary-wage criteria?” vs Independent “On what grounds other than exclusion from ordinary wages could the collective agreement's attendance condition be held invalid?”
The primary reading asks about ordinary-wage status under more restrictive attendance conditions, whereas the independent reading asks about other grounds for invalidating the condition itself.
환송 후 원심에서 인용할 수 있는 한도액은 피고 패소 부분, 즉 환송 전 원심에서 인정된 금액에 환송 후 원심에서 청구가 확장된 부분을 더한 금액이므로 환송 후 원심의 심판대상은 이에 한정되고, 이를 초과하는 부분은 환송 전 원심판결 선고와 동시에 확정되어 소송이 종료되었으며Raw 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 first-instance court granted KRW 14,375,806 in holiday pay, overtime-equivalent holiday pay, unused annual leave pay, night pay and retirement pay, but found that the bonuses were not ordinary wages and dismissed the rest; the case was later remanded to the Seoul Western District Court. Only the defendant appealed. After the Supreme Court reversed the defendant's losing part on 11 June 2020, the plaintiff withdrew the retirement-pay claim, abandoned two grounds, and expanded the three statutory allowance claims. The remand court held on 17 June 2021 that all the bonuses were ordinary wages and awarded KRW 18,358,187 with interest.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the remand court had misconceived the scope of its judgment by deciding claims that had already become final, so it awarded KRW 3,210,171, being the amounts found before remand plus the permitted expansion for each allowance, with interest at 5% per annum to 17 June 2021 and at 15% thereafter, and dismissed the remainder. It nevertheless upheld the conclusion that all the bonuses were ordinary wages, although the reasoning that the attendance condition was invalid and that permanence was a conceptual marker was inappropriate. It found no error on limitation and varied the first-instance judgment accordingly.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which both parties appealed, so that the portion of the claim dismissed at first instance did not become final on the appellate judgment.
- A remand judgment reversing more than the defendant's losing part, since the monetary cap depends on what the remand judgment actually reversed.
- A wage whose lack of consideration, periodicity or uniformity is established on other grounds, since the decision preserves those as the elements of ordinary wages.
Record verification notes
Separate the holiday, annual leave and night allowance claims, and compute for each the amount found before remand plus the amount by which the plaintiff expanded it in the remand court. Exclude the withdrawn retirement-pay claim and the abandoned holiday-overtime premium claim, since neither entered the cap. For the bonuses, compare the collective agreement terms with the scheduled workdays and ask whether the condition merely makes payment uncertain or actually removes consideration for scheduled work.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 1개의 청구 일부를 기각하는 제1심판결에 대하여 일방 당사자만이 항소한 경우, 항소심의 심판범위 및 이때 항소심의 심판대상이 되지 아니한 부분은 항소심판결 선고와 동시에 확정되어 소송이 종료되는지 여부(적극) [2] 원고의 청구가 일부 인용된 환송 전 원심판결에 대하여 피고만이 상고하고 상고심에서 피고 패소 부분을 파기·환송한 경우, 환송 후 원심의 심판범위 및 환송 전 원심판결 중 원고 패소 부분에 대하여 환송 후 원심이 심리할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [3] 환송판결에서 환송 전 원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분만 파기한 경우, 환송 후 원심에서 인용할 수 있는 한도액(=피고 패소 부분에 환송 후 원심에서 청구가 확장된 부분을 더한 금액) [4] 근로자가 통상임금이 잘못 산정되었다는 이유로 근로기준법상 통상임금을 기준으로 법정수당의 지급을 청구하는 경우, 법정수당 청구별로 별개의 소송물을 구성하는지 여부(적극) 및 환송 후 원심의 심판범위와 인용할 수 있는 한도액은 소송물별로 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극) [5] 갑이 을 지방자치단체를 상대로 미지급 휴일근로수당 등의 지급을 구하는 소를 제기하여 제1심이 갑의 청구 일부를 인용하고 나머지 청구는 기각하였는데, 을 지방자치단체만 제1심판결에 불복하여 항소하였고, 항소심에서 을 지방자치단체의 항소를 기각하자 을 지방자치단체만 상고하였으며, 그 후 상고심에서 원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기·환송하자 갑이 환송 후 원심에서 부대항소를 제기하여 청구금액을 확장한 사안에서, 환송 후 원심에서 인용할 수 있는 한도액은 피고 패소 부분, 즉 환송 전 원심에서 인정된 금액에 환송 후 원심에서 청구가 확장된 부분을 더한 금액이므로 환송 후 원심의 심판대상은 이에 한정되고, 이를 초과하는 부분은 환송 전 원심판결 선고와 동시에 확정되어 소송이 종료되었으며, 상여금이 통상임금에 해당하는지에 관한 제1심의 판단은 소송물인 법정수당의 존부에 대한 것이 아니라 그 전제가 되는 법률관계에 관하여 판결 이유에서 판단한 것에 불과하여 갑이 환송 후 원심에서 상여금이 통상임금에 해당한다고 주장하는 것이 기판력에 저촉된다고 할 수 없으므로 원심이 이에 대하여 심리·판단한 것에 법리오해의 위법이 없다고 한 사례 [6] 통상임금의 개념 및 판단 기준 / 특정 시점에 재직 중이어야 한다거나 일정 근무일수를 충족하여야만 지급한다는 조건이 부가되어 있다는 사정만으로 통상임금성이 부정되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where only one party files an appeal against a judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed part of one claim, the scope of adjudication by the appellate court, and whether the portion that is not subject to adjudication by the appellate court becomes final and conclusive simultaneously with the pronouncement of the judgment of the appellate court, thereby terminating the lawsuit (affirmative) [2] Where only the defendant filed a final appeal against the judgment of the court below before remand, which had granted the plaintiff's claim in part, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the portion in which the defendant lost, the scope of adjudication of the court below after remand, and whether the court below after remand may hear and determine the portion of the judgment of the court below before remand in which the plaintiff lost (negative) [3] Where the remand judgment reversed only the portion of the judgment of the court below before remand in which the defendant lost, the maximum amount that may be granted by the court below after remand (= the amount of the portion in which the defendant lost plus the portion by which the claim was expanded in the court below after remand) [4] Where an employee claims payment of statutory allowances on the basis of ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act on the ground that ordinary wages were incorrectly calculated, whether each claim for statutory allowances constitutes a separate subject matter of suit (affirmative), and whether the scope of adjudication of the court below after remand and the maximum amount that may be granted must be determined separately for each subject matter of suit (affirmative) [5] A filed a lawsuit against the B local government seeking payment of unpaid holiday work allowances, etc.; the court of first instance granted part of A's claim and dismissed the remainder; only the B local government, dissatisfied with the judgment of the court of first instance, filed an appeal; when the appellate court dismissed the B local government's appeal, only the B local government filed a final appeal; thereafter, when the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost, A filed an incidental appeal in the court below after remand and increased the amount of the claim; in such a case, since the maximum amount that may be granted in the court below after remand is the portion in which the defendant lost, that is, the amount recognized in the court below before remand plus the portion by which the claim was expanded in the court below after remand, the subject matter of adjudication of the court below after remand is limited thereto, the portion exceeding it became final and conclusive simultaneously with the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below before remand, thereby terminating the lawsuit, and the determination of the court of first instance as to whether the bonus falls within ordinary wages was not a determination as to the existence of the statutory allowances constituting the subject matter of suit, but merely a determination made in the reasons for the judgment concerning the underlying legal relationship, so that A's assertion in the court below after remand that the bonus falls within ordinary wages cannot be regarded as contravening res judicata, and accordingly there was no error of misapprehension of legal principles in the court below's hearing and determination of the matter [6] The concept and criteria for determining ordinary wages / whether the character of ordinary wages is negated merely by the fact that a condition is attached requiring that the employee be employed at a specific point in time or that the employee complete a certain number of working days in order for payment to be made (negative)
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
1. 원심판결을 파기하고, 원심에서 변경된 청구를 포함하여 제1심판결을 다음과 같이 변경한다. 가. 이 사건 소송 중 3,210,171원 및 이에 대하여 2016. 1. 1.부터 2020. 9. 8.까지는 연 5%의, 그다음 날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 초과하여 지급을 구하는 부분은 2017. 8. 24. 환송 전 원심판결이 선고됨으로써 종료되었다. 나. 피고는 원고에게 3,210,171원 및 이에 대하여 2016. 1. 1.부터 2021. 6. 17.까지는 연 5%의, 그다음 날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 지급하라. 다. 원고의 나머지 청구를 기각한다. 2. 소송총비용은 각자 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
1. The judgment of the court below is reversed and, including the claim amended in the court below, the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. a. The portion of the lawsuit in this case seeking payment in excess of 3,210,171 won and money calculated thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from January 1, 2016 to September 8, 2020, and at the rate of 15% per annum from the following day until the date of full payment, was terminated by the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below before remand on August 24, 2017. b. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 3,210,171 won and money calculated thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from January 1, 2016 to June 17, 2021, and at the rate of 15% per annum from the following day until the date of full payment. c. The remainder of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. Each party shall bear its own costs of the entire lawsuit.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제415조 / [2] 민사소송법 제415조, 제425조, 제431조, 제436조 / [3] 민사소송법 제262조, 제415조, 제425조, 제431조, 제436조 / [4] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 제56조, 제60조, 근로기준법 시행령 제6조 제1항, 민사소송법 제216조, 제415조, 제425조, 제431조, 제436조 / [5] 민사소송법 제216조, 제262조, 제415조, 제425조, 제431조, 제436조, 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 제56조, 제60조, 근로기준법 시행령 제6조 제1항 / [6] 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