Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Change in the criteria for determining ordinary wages for wages subject to a workday-count condition
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Dec. 19, 2024, 2023Da302838 (en banc judgment)
Case name: 임금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is a bonus of 750% subject to a 15-day work requirement included in ordinary wages?
Holding
The definition was established that ordinary wages are wages agreed to be paid regularly and uniformly as consideration for prescribed working hours. It was held that wages agreed to be paid regularly and uniformly as consideration where prescribed working hours are provided in full constitute ordinary wages, regardless of the existence of a condition or the possibility of its fulfillment. A workday condition within the number of prescribed working days does not negate the character of ordinary wages, but a condition exceeding that is excluded as consideration for additional work. It was stated that fixity, which has no basis in Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, cannot be adopted as a conceptual indicator, and the 2013 en banc legal principle was changed. The new legal principle applies to calculations from after the date of pronouncement, but applies retroactively to the case at hand and to pending parallel cases.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
(가) 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
Unofficial English translation
(a) Article 6, paragraph (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act provides that ordinary wages mean "an hourly amount, daily amount, weekly amount, monthly amount, or piece-rate amount determined to be paid to the employee regularly and uniformly for prescribed working hours or total working hours."
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
(가) 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
Unofficial English translation
(a) Article 6, paragraph (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act provides that ordinary wages mean "an hourly amount, daily amount, weekly amount, monthly amount, or piece-rate amount determined to be paid to the employee regularly and uniformly for prescribed working hours or total working hours."
Factors
- 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.
- 소정근로일수를 초과하는 근무일수 조건부 임금은 소정근로를 제공하였다고 하여 지급되는 것이 아니고 소정근로를 넘는 추가 근로의 대가이므로 통상임금이 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
• Ordinary wages mean wages determined to be paid regularly and uniformly as the remuneration for prescribed working hours.
• Where an employee fully provides prescribed working hours, wages determined to be paid regularly and uniformly as the remuneration therefor fall within ordinary wages, regardless of the existence of, or the possibility of fulfilling, any conditions attached thereto.
• Wages conditioned on a number of working days exceeding the number of prescribed working days are not paid on the ground that prescribed working hours have been provided, but are the remuneration for additional working hours beyond prescribed working hours, and therefore are not ordinary wages.
Relation to precedent
Changes earlier decisions Stated in the decision
(가) 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
Unofficial English translation
(a) Article 6, paragraph (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act provides that ordinary wages mean "an hourly amount, daily amount, weekly amount, monthly amount, or piece-rate amount determined to be paid to the employee regularly and uniformly for prescribed working hours or total working hours."
Decisions referred to
대법원 2013. 12. 18. 선고 2012다89399 전원합의체 판결(공2014상, 236)(변경)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the number of prescribed working days, set without regard to actual working conditions, is contested as a circumvention of mandatory provisions, where does the determination of ordinary wages turn?
Where the number of workdays set as a condition exceeds the number of prescribed working days, and whether the agreement circumvents mandatory provisions, become the focus on the record, revisit this determination. If the distinction between the case at hand and parallel cases, and the scope of calculations after the date of pronouncement, become issues, examine them together.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched Gemini 3.1 Pro · 2026-10-16
The cross-series AI independent reading finds that all eight axes are consistent with the first reading. The order, the quotation of the original text of the Summary of Decision, the form of the decision standard, the decision factors, the relation to precedent, and the classification of the burden of proof conform to the wording of the original text.
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: In a case where the issues were the concept and criteria for determining ordinary wages, whether the fact that a condition requiring the fulfillment of a certain number of workdays is attached, by that fact alone, negates the character of ordinary wages, and the scope of effect of the new legal principle concerning the concept of ordinary wages, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.
Supreme Court standard: It established the definition that ordinary wages means wages determined to be paid regularly and uniformly as consideration for prescribed working hours. It held that where an employee fully provides prescribed working hours, the wages determined to be paid regularly and uniformly as consideration therefor constitute ordinary wages regardless of the existence of a condition and its attainability. A workday-count condition within the number of prescribed working days does not negate the character of ordinary wages, but a condition exceeding that is excluded as consideration for additional work. It stated that fixedness, which has no basis in Article 6, paragraph (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, cannot be adopted as a conceptual marker, and it changed the 2013 en banc legal principle. The new legal principle applies to the calculation of ordinary wages from the time after the date of pronouncement of judgment, and is applied retroactively to the instant case and pending parallel cases. The Supreme Court established the standard that where an employee fully provides prescribed working hours, the wages determined to be paid regularly and uniformly as consideration therefor constitute ordinary wages regardless of the existence or attainability of a condition, and that wages subject to a workday-count condition exceeding the number of prescribed working days are not ordinary wages, and it reversed the judgment of the court below and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the wages in question are paid as consideration for additional work beyond prescribed working hours
- Cases involving wages that were not determined to be paid regularly and uniformly
Record verification notes
When applying the legal principle of Supreme Court Decision 2023Da302838 to other cases, first confirm whether the wages in question were determined to be paid regularly and uniformly as consideration for prescribed working hours, and whether the workday-count condition falls within the number of prescribed working days or exceeds it. It also needs to be checked together whether the case falls within the scope of effect under which the new legal principle applies to the calculation of ordinary wages from the time after the date of pronouncement of judgment and is applied retroactively to the instant case and parallel cases pending before the courts.
From the official text
Points at issue
통상임금의 개념과 판단 기준 및 고정성을 통상임금의 개념적 징표로 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 일정 근무일수를 충족하여야만 지급한다는 조건이 부가되어 있다는 사정만으로 통상임금성이 부정되는지 여부(소극) / 통상임금 개념에 관한 새로운 법리의 효력 범위
Unofficial English translation
The concept and criteria for determining ordinary wages, and whether fixedness may be regarded as a conceptual indicium of ordinary wages (negative) / Whether the character of ordinary wages is denied merely by the fact that a condition requiring the fulfillment of a certain number of working days as a prerequisite for payment is attached (negative) / The scope of effect of the new legal principle concerning the concept of ordinary wages
Summary of the holding
(가) 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 정의와 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. 어떤 임금에 일정 근무일수를 충족하여야만 지급한다는 조건(이하 ‘근무일수 조건’이라 한다)이 부가되어 있더라도, 그와 같은 조건이 소정근로를 온전하게 제공하는 근로자라면 충족할 조건, 즉 소정근로일수 이내로 정해진 근무일수 조건인 경우에는 그러한 조건이 부가되어 있다는 사정만으로 그 임금의 통상임금성이 부정되지 않는다. 설령 근로자의 실제 근무일수가 소정근로일수에 미치지 못하여 근로자가 근무일수 조건부 임금을 지급받지 못하더라도, 그 임금이 소정근로 대가성, 정기성, 일률성을 갖추고 있는 한 이를 통상임금에 산입하여 연장·야간·휴일근로에 대한 법정수당을 산정하여야 한다. 통상임금은 실제 근무일수나 실제 수령한 임금에 관계없이 소정근로의 가치를 반영하여 정한 기준임금이기 때문이다. 반면 소정근로일수를 초과하는 근무일수 조건부 임금은 소정근로를 제공하였다고 하여 지급되는 것이 아니고 소정근로를 넘는 추가 근로의 대가이므로 통상임금이 아니다. (나) 대법원 2013. 12. 18. 선고 2012다89399 전원합의체 판결 중 고정성을 통상임금의 개념적 징표로 삼아 근무일수 조건부 임금의 통상임금 해당 여부를 판단한 부분과 그와 같은 취지의 종전 판결들은 이 판결의 견해와 배치되는 범위 내에서 모두 변경하기로 한다. 위와 같이 변경된 새로운 법리는 법적 안정성과 신뢰보호를 고려하여 이 판결 선고일 이후의 통상임금 산정부터 적용하되, 다만 당해사건 및 이 판결 선고 시점에 이 판결이 변경하는 법리가 재판의 전제가 되어 통상임금 해당 여부가 다투어져 법원에 계속 중인 병행사건에는 구체적 사건의 권리구제를 목적으로 하는 사법의 본질상 새로운 법리를 소급 적용하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 제56조, 근로기준법 시행령 제6조 제1항
Read 2026-10-15 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. 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