Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Ordinary wages: presence clauses and performance bonus minimums
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2023Da216777 (judgment)
Case name: 임금[성과급의 통상임금성이 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a wage payable only to those in service at a given time, and a bonus paid according to work performance, count as ordinary wages under Article 2(1)(v) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 6(1) of its Enforcement Decree, and for a bonus of the prior year is the existence of a guaranteed minimum decided by that prior year?
Holding
A presence condition alone does not deny that a wage is consideration for scheduled work, so a sum fixed as a percentage of the base wage and paid in fixed instalments remains an ordinary wage despite that condition. A bonus paid purely by work performance generally lacks the character of consideration for scheduled work and is not an ordinary wage, but any fixed minimum paid regardless of performance is consideration for scheduled work. Where the bonus is wages of the prior year and only its payment date falls in the current year, whether a minimum exists is decided by the prior year, and such a minimum belongs to the ordinary wages of that prior year.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
근로자가 재직하는 것은 근로계약에 따라 소정근로를 제공하기 위한 당연한 전제이다. 따라서 어떠한 임금을 지급받기 위하여 특정 시점에 재직 중이어야 한다는 조건이 부가되어 있다는 사정만으로 그 임금의 소정근로 대가성이나 통상임금성이 부정되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
That an employee is employed is a natural prerequisite for providing prescribed working hours under the employment contract. Therefore, the fact that a condition requiring employment at a certain point in time is attached in order to receive certain wages does not, by that fact alone, negate the character of those wages as consideration for prescribed working hours or as ordinary wages.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고들의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
That part of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost is reversed and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
법령의 문언과 취지에 충실하게 통상임금 개념을 해석하면, 통상임금은 소정근로의 대가로서 정기적, 일률적으로 지급하기로 정한 임금을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
If the concept of ordinary wages is interpreted faithfully to the wording and purport of statutes and regulations, ordinary wages means wages agreed to be paid regularly and uniformly as consideration for prescribed working hours.
Factors
- 단지 조건의 성취 여부가 불확실하다는 사정만으로 통상임금성이 부정된다고 볼 수는 없다
- 근로자의 근무실적에 따라 지급되는 성과급은 단순히 소정근로를 제공하였다고 지급되는 것이 아니라 일정한 업무성과를 달성하거나 그에 대한 평가결과가 어떠한 기준에 이르러야 지급되므로, 일반적으로 ‘소정근로 대가성’을 갖추었다고 보기 어렵다
- 근무실적과 무관하게 최소한도의 일정액을 지급하기로 정한 경우 그 금액(이하 ‘최소지급분’이라 한다)은 소정근로에 대한 대가에 해당한다
- 지급 시기만 당해 연도로 정한 것이라면, 그 성과급은 전년도의 임금에 해당한다
- 전년도의 임금에 해당하는 성과급에 관하여 최소지급분이 있는지는 지급 시기인 당해 연도가 아니라 지급 대상기간인 전년도를 기준으로 판단하여야 하고
Unofficial English translation
• The ordinary wage character cannot be regarded as negated merely by the fact that the fulfillment of the condition is uncertain
• A performance bonus paid according to an employee's work performance is not paid merely because prescribed working hours have been provided, but is paid only when a certain level of work performance is achieved or the evaluation results thereof reach a certain standard, and therefore it is generally difficult to regard it as possessing 'consideration for prescribed working hours'
• Where it is agreed that a certain minimum amount is paid regardless of work performance, that amount (hereinafter referred to as the 'minimum payment') corresponds to consideration for prescribed working hours
• If only the timing of payment is set as the year in question, that performance bonus corresponds to wages for the previous year
• Whether a minimum payment exists with respect to a performance bonus corresponding to wages for the previous year must be determined on the basis of the previous year, which is the period to which the payment pertains, rather than the year in question, which is the timing of payment, and
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 judgment 2020Da247190 decided December 19, 2024 (Gong 2025 Sang, 267)
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2024. 12. 19. 선고 2020다247190 전원합의체 판결(공2025상, 267) / [1] 대법원 2025. 1. 23. 선고 2019다204876 판결(공2025상, 485)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the pay rules contain no express clause allowing payment criteria to be changed on a government instruction, or no government instruction exists, may criteria still be changed to pay differentially without running against labour practice?
The Seoul High Court's remand judgment on the scope of the minimum within the basic performance bonus, and on the resulting statutory allowances and severance, will show how the minimum is found in practice. A later decision refining when a change of payment criteria is lawful, or an amendment to Article 2(1)(v) of the Labor Standards Act or Article 6(1) of its Enforcement Decree, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 “Where the pay rules contain no express clause allowing payment criteria to be changed on a government instruction, or no government instruction exists, may criteria still be changed to pay differentially without running against labour practice?” vs Independent “What specific payment conditions would substantively negate compensation for prescribed work, regularity, or uniformity?”
The primary asks whether pay criteria can be changed to differential payment without a government instruction or express clause. The independent asks which specific payment conditions would negate prescribed-work compensation, regularity, or uniformity.
근로자가 재직하는 것은 근로계약에 따라 소정근로를 제공하기 위한 당연한 전제이다. 따라서 어떠한 임금을 지급받기 위하여 특정 시점에 재직 중이어야 한다는 조건이 부가되어 있다는 사정만으로 그 임금의 소정근로 대가성이나 통상임금성이 부정되지 않는다.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 13 January 2023 (2017Na2016158), read the presence clause in the collective agreement and the pay rules as leaving intact the wage already accrued for work already done, so that the clause did not defeat fixedness. It held that the basic performance bonus was wholly guaranteed at 200% of the base wage, because it had been converted from the minimum part of an incentive payment paid over more than ten years and its rate could not be made worse, so the entire amount was an ordinary wage. It held that the management performance bonus, the self-set performance bonus paid in December 2013 and the part above 20% paid in December 2014, and the long-service incentive paid every five years of service were not ordinary wages.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that treating fixedness as a conceptual element of ordinary wages and then treating the presence clause as void was not appropriate, but that the conclusion recognising the basic bonus as an ordinary wage was right. On the basic performance bonus it held that the minimum must be judged by the prior year, that Article 22(4) of the former pay rules expressly allowed the payment criteria to be changed on a government instruction, and that the employer, designated a market-type public enterprise from 24 January 2011, had to introduce the system and pay performance pay on a differentiated basis under the 2010 recommendation and the 2012 budget directive. Because the employer in fact paid 133% to 267% of the base wage for 2012, the court below erred in finding a floor of 200% without examining what was guaranteed regardless of performance, so the whole part of the judgment adverse to the employer, including the severance claim, was reversed and remanded, while the plaintiffs' appeals were dismissed; as to the other payments, the reasoning on fixedness was not apt but the result denying ordinary wage status was right.
Distinguishing conditions
- A wage whose attached condition, assessed in substance, itself negates consideration for scheduled work or its regularity and uniformity, since the Court kept conditions as a factor in that assessment.
- A bonus with no fixed amount payable regardless of work performance, since only such a minimum is consideration for scheduled work.
- A payment whose criteria cannot lawfully be changed on a government instruction under the governing pay rules, since the Court relied on the express clause allowing that change.
Record verification notes
Set the pay rules and their enforcement rules against the file clause by clause: the eligibility rule at the payment reference date, the rule allowing a change of payment criteria, and the period each payment covers. Separate the fixed minimum from the performance-differentiated part and test it against what was actually paid in each year, since the Court relied on the payment of 133% to 267% of the base wage. Remember that the statutory allowances and the severance claim must be recalculated on the ordinary wage that results, because the reversal covers the severance claim as well.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 통상임금의 개념 및 판단 기준 / 특정 시점에 재직 중이어야 한다는 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 ordinary wage character is negated merely by the fact that a condition requiring employment at a certain point in time is attached (negative) [2] Whether a performance bonus paid according to work performance corresponds to ordinary wages (negative) and, where it is agreed that a certain minimum amount is paid regardless of work performance, whether that minimum payment corresponds to consideration for prescribed working hours (affirmative) / Whether, with respect to a performance bonus corresponding to wages for the previous year, the existence of a minimum payment must be determined on the basis of the previous year, which is the period to which the payment pertains (affirmative), and whether, if there is a minimum payment, it corresponds to ordinary wages for the previous year (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 근로기준법 시행령 제6조 제1항은 통상임금을 "근로자에게 정기적이고 일률적으로 소정근로 또는 총근로에 대하여 지급하기로 정한 시간급 금액, 일급 금액, 주급 금액, 월급 금액 또는 도급 금액"이라고 규정한다. 법령의 문언과 취지에 충실하게 통상임금 개념을 해석하면, 통상임금은 소정근로의 대가로서 정기적, 일률적으로 지급하기로 정한 임금을 말한다. 근로자가 소정근로를 온전하게 제공하면 그 대가로서 정기적, 일률적으로 지급하도록 정해진 임금은 그에 부가된 조건의 존부나 성취 가능성과 관계없이 통상임금에 해당한다. 임금에 부가된 조건은 해당 임금의 객관적 성질을 실질적으로 판단하는 과정에서 소정근로 대가성이나 정기성, 일률성을 부정하는 요소 중 하나로 고려될 수는 있지만, 단지 조건의 성취 여부가 불확실하다는 사정만으로 통상임금성이 부정된다고 볼 수는 없다. 통상임금은 실근로와 구별되는 소정근로의 가치를 반영하는 도구개념이므로, 계속적인 소정근로의 제공이 전제된 근로관계를 기초로 산정하여야 한다. 근로자가 재직하는 것은 근로계약에 따라 소정근로를 제공하기 위한 당연한 전제이다. 따라서 어떠한 임금을 지급받기 위하여 특정 시점에 재직 중이어야 한다는 조건이 부가되어 있다는 사정만으로 그 임금의 소정근로 대가성이나 통상임금성이 부정되지 않는다. [2] 근로자의 근무실적에 따라 지급되는 성과급은 단순히 소정근로를 제공하였다고 지급되는 것이 아니라 일정한 업무성과를 달성하거나 그에 대한 평가결과가 어떠한 기준에 이르러야 지급되므로, 일반적으로 ‘소정근로 대가성’을 갖추었다고 보기 어렵다. 따라서 위와 같은 순수한 의미의 성과급은 통상임금에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다. 다만 근무실적과 무관하게 최소한도의 일정액을 지급하기로 정한 경우 그 금액(이하 ‘최소지급분’이라 한다)은 소정근로에 대한 대가에 해당한다. 근로자의 전년도 근무실적에 따라 지급되는 성과급이 당해 연도에 지급된다고 하더라도 지급 시기만 당해 연도로 정한 것이라면, 그 성과급은 전년도의 임금에 해당한다. 통상임금은 연장·야간·휴일근로를 제공하기 전에 산정될 수 있어야 하므로, 전년도의 임금에 해당하는 성과급에 관하여 최소지급분이 있는지는 지급 시기인 당해 연도가 아니라 지급 대상기간인 전년도를 기준으로 판단하여야 하고, 최소지급분이 있다면 이는 전년도의 소정근로에 대한 대가로서 전년도의 통상임금에 해당한다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고들의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
That part of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost is reversed and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals by the plaintiffs are 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