Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Refund repayment clause after a telemarketer's resignation and Article 20
Supreme Court, July 17, 2025, 2023Da318420 (judgment)
Case name: 약정금청구[사용자가 텔레마케터 퇴직 후 발생한 환불수수료의 반환을 구하는 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a telemarketer was paid 10% of the net sales from paid members in advance and agreed to return 10% of any refund arising after the contract ended, is that repayment clause an agreement prohibited by Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act?
Holding
It is not. Where the worker is paid a sum and agrees to return all or part of it if a stated event occurs after resignation, the Court weighs the legal character of the money, the circumstances and scale of its payment, and the reasons, scope and period of the return; if that does not restrict the freedom to resign or force continued work against the worker's will, Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act is not breached. Here the remuneration was 10% of net sales, and appears to have been paid in full in advance although it could have been paid by instalments, and the return of 10% of refunds settled the excess advance when refunds cut net sales, so it was not an agreement for breach of the employment contract and the appeal was dismissed.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
사용자가 근로자에게 일정한 금원을 지급하면서 퇴직 후 일정한 사유가 발생하면 그 전부 또는 일부를 반환받기로 약정한 경우, 반환 대상인 금전의 법적 성격과 지급 경위 및 그 규모·액수, 반환 사유와 그 적용 범위·기간 등의 여러 사정을 종합할 때, 근로자의 퇴직의 자유를 제한하거나 그 의사에 반하는 근로의 계속을 부당하게 강요하는 것으로 볼 수 없다면, 이것을 근로기준법 제20조가 금지하는 약정이라고 보기는 어렵다.
Unofficial English translation
Where an employer pays a certain sum of money to an employee while agreeing to receive back all or part of it if a certain cause arises after retirement, if, upon an overall assessment of the various circumstances, including the legal character of the money subject to return and the circumstances of its payment and its scale and amount, the grounds for return and the scope and period of their application, it cannot be regarded as restricting the employee's freedom to retire or unjustly compelling the continuation of work against the employee's will, it is difficult to regard this as an agreement prohibited by Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
반환 대상인 금전의 법적 성격과 지급 경위 및 그 규모·액수, 반환 사유와 그 적용 범위·기간 등의 여러 사정을 종합할 때
Unofficial English translation
upon an overall assessment of the various circumstances, including the legal character of the money subject to return and the circumstances of its payment and its scale and amount, the grounds for return and the scope and period of their application
Factors
- 반환 대상인 금전의 법적 성격과 지급 경위 및 그 규모·액수
- 반환 사유와 그 적용 범위·기간
- 갑이 유치한 유료회원에 관련된 ‘실매출액’의 10%를 보수 산정의 기준으로 정하고, 원칙적으로 유료회원 계약기간에 따라 보수를 분할하여 지급하기로 합의하였는데
- 갑의 보수는 기본적으로 근로의 대상으로 지급되는 임금에 해당하나 을 회사의 사업구조, 갑이 제공하는 근로 내용, 유료회원 계약기간 등을 감안하면 그와 같은 합의가 근로기준법 등 강행규정에 위반되거나 탈법행위에 해당한다고 보기 어려운 점
- 갑이 지급받은 보수 총액, 반환금의 규모와 액수 등을 감안하면
Unofficial English translation
• the legal character of the money subject to return and the circumstances of its payment and its scale and amount
• the grounds for return and the scope and period of their application
• setting 10% of the 'actual sales amount' related to paid members recruited by A as the basis for calculating remuneration, and agreeing that the remuneration would be paid in installments according to the paid member contract periods in principle
• although A's remuneration corresponds to wages paid as consideration for work, considering Company B's business structure, the content of the work A provided, the paid member contract periods, and the like, it is difficult to regard such an agreement as violating mandatory provisions such as the Labor Standards Act or as constituting an act in evasion of the law
• considering the total amount of the remuneration received by A and the scale and amount of the refund
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2022. 3. 11. 선고 2017다202272 판결(공2022상, 649)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Da202272 decided March 11, 2022 (Gong 2022 Sang, 649)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2022. 3. 11. 선고 2017다202272 판결(공2022상, 649)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the company had paid the remuneration by instalments, so that no advance payment was outstanding, would a clause requiring the return of 10% of refunds arising after resignation still fall outside Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act?
A later decision treating a repayment clause as one for breach of the employment contract, where the remuneration was not advanced in full, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 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 the company had paid the remuneration by instalments, so that no advance payment was outstanding, would a clause requiring the return of 10% of refunds arising after resignation still fall outside Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act?” vs Independent “At what level of repayment amount or duration would an otherwise similar arrangement improperly restrict a worker's freedom to resign?”
The primary asks whether the clause would still fall outside Article 20 if the remuneration had been paid by instalments with no advance outstanding, while the independent asks at what amount or duration a similar clause would unduly restrict resignation.
사용자가 근로자에게 일정한 금원을 지급하면서 퇴직 후 일정한 사유가 발생하면 그 전부 또는 일부를 반환받기로 약정한 경우, 반환 대상인 금전의 법적 성격과 지급 경위 및 그 규모·액수, 반환 사유와 그 적용 범위·기간 등의 여러 사정을 종합할 때, 근로자의 퇴직의 자유를 제한하거나 그 의사에 반하는 근로의 계속을 부당하게 강요하는 것으로 볼 수 없다면, 이것을 근로기준법 제20조가 금지하는 약정이라고 보기는 어렵다.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 Central District Court, in its judgment of 13 December 2023 (2022Na63098), granted the plaintiff's claim for the repayment of KRW 1,776,575, taking the return provision in the telemarketing business commission contract of 31 March 2021 to be valid. The plaintiff had bought the company's claim under that contract on 20 October 2021.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. The provision settles the excess of advance remuneration when a refund reduces the net sales on which the 10% was based, and is not an agreement to return wages properly due or one for breach of the employment contract; nor does it restrict the defendant's freedom to resign. Reading the appellate reasons against the provisions, the law and the record, the Court held that no legal principle had been misunderstood and no rule on the limits of free evaluation of evidence had been broken, and dismissed the appeal with the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A clause whose content is the return of wages that should properly have been paid to the worker, since the Court rested on the view that this provision was not of that character.
- A case in which the remuneration was actually paid by instalments over the members' contract period, so that no excess advance payment remained to be settled when a refund arose.
- A clause that in substance restricts the worker's freedom to resign or forces continued work against the worker's will, which is what Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act is designed to prevent.
Record verification notes
Check first how the remuneration was actually paid: the company here could have paid by instalments but appears to have paid the whole sum as soon as each paid member contract was concluded. Then compare the total remuneration received, KRW 64,215,296, with the amount claimed, KRW 1,776,575, and the fact that the members' contract periods did not exceed one year. Also confirm that refunds arising during employment were deducted from wages under the same 10% rule, since the Court relied on that as showing the return is not tied to resignation.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 근로계약 불이행에 대한 위약금 또는 손해배상액 예정의 약정을 금지하는 근로기준법 제20조의 규정 취지 및 사용자가 근로자에게 일정한 금원을 지급하면서 퇴직 후 일정한 사유가 발생하면 그 전부 또는 일부를 반환받기로 약정한 경우, 근로기준법 제20조가 금지하는 약정인지 판단하는 기준 [2] 갑이 을 주식회사와 체결한 텔레마케팅 업무위촉계약에서 갑의 보수는 유료회원으로부터 지급받는 금원에서 일체의 환불금을 공제한 금액인 ‘실매출액’의 10%이고, 유료회원 계약기간에 안분하여 분할 지급함을 원칙으로 하되 선지급할 수 있다고 정하면서, ‘계약이 해지·만료된 후 환불이 발생한 경우, 갑은 을 회사에 환불금의 10%를 반환하여야 한다.’는 반환규정을 둔 사안에서, 제반 사정에 비추어 위 반환규정은 실질적으로 갑의 근로계약 불이행을 사유로 한 것이 아니고, 갑의 퇴직 자유를 제한하거나 그 의사에 반하는 근로의 계속을 부당하게 강요하는 것이라고 볼 수도 없으므로, 근로기준법 제20조가 금지하는 약정에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purpose of Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act, which prohibits agreements stipulating penalties or predetermined damages for non-performance of an employment contract, and the criteria for determining whether an agreement, under which an employer pays a certain sum of money to an employee while agreeing to receive back all or part of it if a certain cause arises after retirement, constitutes an agreement prohibited by Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act [2] In a case where, under a telemarketing service commission contract concluded between A and Company B, A's remuneration was 10% of the 'actual sales amount', defined as the amount remaining after deducting all refunds from the money received from paid members, and it was agreed that the remuneration would in principle be paid in installments apportioned over the paid member contract periods but could be paid in advance, with a return provision stipulating that 'where a refund arises after the contract has been terminated or has expired, A must return 10% of the refund to Company B', holding that, in light of all the circumstances, the said return provision was not in substance based on A's non-performance of the employment contract, and could not be regarded as restricting A's freedom to retire or unjustly compelling the continuation of work against A's will, and therefore did not constitute an agreement prohibited by Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act
Summary of the holding
[1] 근로기준법 제20조는 "사용자는 근로계약 불이행에 대한 위약금 또는 손해배상액을 예정하는 계약을 체결하지 못한다."라고 규정하고 있다. 근로자가 근로계약을 불이행한 경우, 반대급부인 임금을 지급받지 못한 것에서 더 나아가 위약금이나 손해배상금을 지급하여야 한다면, 근로자로서는 비록 불리한 근로계약을 체결하였다고 하더라도 근로계약의 구속에서 쉽사리 벗어날 수 없다. 위 규정의 취지는 그와 같은 위약금이나 손해배상액 예정의 약정을 금지함으로써, 근로자가 퇴직의 자유를 제한받아 부당하게 근로의 계속을 강요당하는 것을 방지하고, 근로자의 직장선택의 자유를 보장하며, 불리한 근로계약을 해지할 수 있도록 보호하려는 것이다. 사용자가 근로자에게 일정한 금원을 지급하면서 퇴직 후 일정한 사유가 발생하면 그 전부 또는 일부를 반환받기로 약정한 경우, 반환 대상인 금전의 법적 성격과 지급 경위 및 그 규모·액수, 반환 사유와 그 적용 범위·기간 등의 여러 사정을 종합할 때, 근로자의 퇴직의 자유를 제한하거나 그 의사에 반하는 근로의 계속을 부당하게 강요하는 것으로 볼 수 없다면, 이것을 근로기준법 제20조가 금지하는 약정이라고 보기는 어렵다. [2] 갑이 을 주식회사와 체결한 텔레마케팅 업무위촉계약에서 갑의 보수는 유료회원으로부터 지급받는 금원에서 일체의 환불금을 공제한 금액인 ‘실매출액’의 10%이고, 유료회원 계약기간에 안분하여 분할 지급함을 원칙으로 하되 선지급할 수 있다고 정하면서, ‘계약이 해지·만료된 후 환불이 발생한 경우, 갑은 을 회사에 환불금의 10%를 반환하여야 한다.’는 반환규정을 둔 사안에서, 갑과 을 회사는 위 계약을 통하여 갑이 유치한 유료회원에 관련된 ‘실매출액’의 10%를 보수 산정의 기준으로 정하고, 원칙적으로 유료회원 계약기간에 따라 보수를 분할하여 지급하기로 합의하였는데, 갑의 보수는 기본적으로 근로의 대상으로 지급되는 임금에 해당하나 을 회사의 사업구조, 갑이 제공하는 근로 내용, 유료회원 계약기간 등을 감안하면 그와 같은 합의가 근로기준법 등 강행규정에 위반되거나 탈법행위에 해당한다고 보기 어려운 점, 을 회사는 갑에게 보수를 분할하여 지급할 수 있었음에도 유료회원 계약이 체결되면 보수 전액을 선지급한 것으로 보이는데, 위 반환규정은 갑의 퇴직 후 환불금이 발생하여 보수 산정의 기준인 실매출액이 감소할 경우 선지급된 보수 중 초과 지급분의 정산을 위하여 환불금의 10%를 반환하기로 하는 내용일 뿐 마땅히 근로자에게 지급되어야 할 임금을 반환하는 취지의 약정이라고 보기 어려운 점, 갑은 재직 중에도 유료회원에 대한 환불이 발생하면 환불금의 10%를 공제한 액수를 임금으로 지급받았는데, 환불금의 10%는 갑이 퇴직하지 않았더라도 유료회원에 대한 환불이 발생하면 반환하였어야 할 돈인 점 및 갑이 지급받은 보수 총액, 반환금의 규모와 액수 등을 감안하면 위 반환규정은 실질적으로 갑의 근로계약 불이행을 사유로 한 것이 아니고, 갑의 퇴직 자유를 제한하거나 그 의사에 반하는 근로의 계속을 부당하게 강요하는 것이라고 볼 수도 없으므로, 근로기준법 제20조가 금지하는 약정에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 근로기준법 제20조 [2] 근로기준법 제20조
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