Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Bonus cut weighed against a base-pay rise in an unfavourable change of employment rules
Supreme Court, Feb. 20, 2025, 2024Da293092 (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 one element of working conditions is changed unfavourably while another element linked to it as consideration is changed favourably, must a change of employment rules be judged unfavourable by weighing those circumstances together, and does that apply to a university's cut of a fixed-term teacher's bonus allowance accompanied by a sharp rise in base pay?
Holding
Yes, such circumstances must be weighed together. Where a fixed-term teacher's base pay rose sharply because the defendant's pay scale for the 2012 school year followed the pay amounts of the amended civil servant pay rules, the cut of the bonus allowance may well have been made in consideration of that rise, and the compensatory or linked relationship between the two cannot easily be denied. The validity of the 2012 change therefore requires an examination of the circumstances in which the base pay rose, whether the two were linked, and whether the level of wages fell overall, and only then may the change be treated as unfavourable.
Points at issue, verbatim
근로조건을 결정짓는 여러 요소 중 한 요소가 불이익하게 변경되더라도 그와 대가관계나 연계성이 있는 다른 요소가 유리하게 변경되는 경우, 취업규칙의 변경이 근로자에게 불이익한지를 판단할 때 그와 같은 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where one of the various factors determining working conditions is changed disadvantageously but another factor having a quid pro quo relationship or connection therewith is changed favorably, whether such circumstances must be comprehensively taken into account in determining whether an amendment to the rules of employment is disadvantageous to employees (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 전주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
기본급 인상이 함께 이루어진 경위와 그 대가관계 여부 등을 검토하고 임금 수준이 전체적으로 감소하였는지를 살피는 등으로 기본급이 근로자에게 유리하게 변경되었다는 사정까지 종합적으로 고려하여야 할 것이다.
Unofficial English translation
It must examine the circumstances under which the increase in base salary was also made and whether there is a quid pro quo relationship therefor, and check whether the wage level decreased overall, and thereby comprehensively take into account even the circumstance that the base salary was changed favorably to the employee.
Factors
- 기간제 교원의 기본급이 급격히 인상된 점을 고려하여 상여수당을 감액한 것으로 볼 여지가 충분하고
- 기본급 인상과 상여수당 삭감 사이의 대가관계나 연계성을 쉽게 부정하기 어려우므로
- 기본급 인상이 함께 이루어진 경위와 그 대가관계 여부 등을 검토하고 임금 수준이 전체적으로 감소하였는지를 살피는 등으로
Unofficial English translation
• There is sufficient room for regarding the bonus allowance as having been reduced in consideration of the fact that the base salary of fixed-term faculty members had been raised sharply, and
• since it is difficult to readily deny the quid pro quo relationship or connection between the increase in base salary and the reduction of the bonus allowance,
• By examining the circumstances under which the increase in base salary was made together and whether there is a quid pro quo relationship therefor, and checking whether the wage level decreased overall, and the like,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2022. 3. 11. 선고 2018다255488 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Da255488 decided March 11, 2022
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2022. 3. 11. 선고 2018다255488 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the base pay was frozen from the 2013 to the 2019 school year after the 2012 rise, how much of that earlier rise still counts as a concrete benefit to the teacher in the overall comparison of wage levels?
The remand judgment of the Jeonju District Court in case 2023Na15526, once it decides the validity of the 2012 change and fixes the bonus owed, will show how the weighing is done. Any amendment to Article 94(1) of the Labour Standards Act or a later decision changing this rule would also require the entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
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 “When the base pay was frozen from the 2013 to the 2019 school year after the 2012 rise, how much of that earlier rise still counts as a concrete benefit to the teacher in the overall comparison of wage levels?” vs Independent “After examining the linkage and overall wage effect, does the 2012 amendment actually constitute an unfavorable change, and what bonus amount is consequently payable?”
The primary asks how much of the 2012 rise still counts as a concrete benefit after the later freeze, while the independent asks whether the 2012 amendment is in fact unfavorable and what bonus is payable.
근로조건을 결정짓는 여러 요소 중 한 요소가 불이익하게 변경되더라도 그와 대가관계나 연계성이 있는 다른 요소가 유리하게 변경되는 경우, 취업규칙의 변경이 근로자에게 불이익한지를 판단할 때 그와 같은 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여야 하는지 여부(적극)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 Jeonju District Court, in its judgment of 29 August 2024 (2023Na15526), accepted the plaintiff's claim in full, holding that the 2012 cut of the fixed-term teachers' bonus allowance was an unfavourable change of employment rules and therefore void. It rejected the defendant's argument that the fall in total remuneration, base pay plus allowances, should be the test for an unfavourable change.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the base pay and the bonus allowance are comparable elements of one wage, so their compensatory or linked relationship cannot easily be denied, and that the reasoning offered for denying it, the distinction between pay and allowances in the pay rules, was not sufficient. It found the 2012 change must be judged by weighing the circumstances of the base pay rise together, and reversed. Because the validity of the 2012 change affects the computation of the bonus computed under the 2011 pay rules, the whole judgment was reversed and remanded. On the 2013 change, which deleted the bonus line from the pay scale with no accompanying rise, the Court found no error in the finding that no custom of not paying the bonus had arisen and that the claim was not barred by good faith.
Distinguishing conditions
- A change of employment rules accompanied by no favourable change in a linked element of working conditions, so that nothing has to be weighed against the adverse change.
- A case in which special circumstances show that the employer and the staff agreed to treat base pay and bonus separately, since the Court stated its rule subject to the absence of such circumstances.
- A claim resting only on the 2013 deletion of the bonus item, where the Court found no error in the lower court's handling of custom and good faith.
Record verification notes
Set the change complained of against every favourable change made at the same time, and record the pay scale for each year, since the Court relied on the freeze from the 2013 to the 2019 school year as well as the 2012 rise. Check whether the institution's charter or pay rules link base pay to the civil servant pay amounts, as the Court held that following them does not by itself show a rise in base pay. Then look at whether the remand judgment has since been delivered, because the 2012 change may now have been upheld.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 근로조건을 결정짓는 여러 요소 중 한 요소가 불이익하게 변경되더라도 그와 대가관계나 연계성이 있는 다른 요소가 유리하게 변경되는 경우, 취업규칙의 변경이 근로자에게 불이익한지를 판단할 때 그와 같은 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여야 하는지 여부(적극) [2] 갑 학교법인이 운영하는 대학교의 기간제 교원으로 근무한 을이 기간제 교원의 상여수당을 삭감한 취업규칙 변경이 무효라고 주장하며 갑 법인을 상대로 변경 전의 취업규칙에 따라 산정한 상여수당 등의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 기간제 교원의 기본급이 급격히 인상된 점을 고려하여 상여수당을 감액한 것으로 볼 여지가 충분하고, 기본급 인상과 상여수당 삭감 사이의 대가관계나 연계성을 쉽게 부정하기 어려우므로, 위 취업규칙 변경이 근로자에게 불이익한 변경에 해당하는지는 기본급 인상이 함께 이루어진 경위와 그 대가관계 여부 등을 검토하고 임금 수준이 전체적으로 감소하였는지를 살피는 등으로 기본급이 근로자에게 유리하게 변경되었다는 사정까지 종합적으로 고려하여야 하는데도, 위 취업규칙 변경이 근로자에게 불이익한 변경에 해당한다고 단정한 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where one of the various factors determining working conditions is changed disadvantageously but another factor having a quid pro quo relationship or connection therewith is changed favorably, such circumstances must be comprehensively taken into account in determining whether an amendment to the rules of employment is disadvantageous to employees (affirmative) [2] In a case where B, who had worked as a fixed-term faculty member at a university operated by A school corporation, claimed that an amendment to the rules of employment reducing the bonus allowance of fixed-term faculty members was null and void and sought from A corporation payment of the bonus allowance, etc. calculated under the rules of employment before the amendment, there is sufficient room for regarding the bonus allowance as having been reduced in consideration of the fact that the base salary of fixed-term faculty members had been raised sharply, and since it is difficult to readily deny the quid pro quo relationship or connection between the increase in base salary and the reduction of the bonus allowance, whether the aforesaid amendment to the rules of employment constitutes a disadvantageous change to employees must be determined by comprehensively taking into account even the circumstance that the base salary was changed favorably to the employee, by examining the circumstances under which the increase in base salary was made together and whether there is a quid pro quo relationship therefor, and checking whether the wage level decreased overall, and the like, yet a case where it was held that the determination of the court below, which conclusively held that the aforesaid amendment to the rules of employment constituted a disadvantageous change to employees, was erroneous for misapprehension of legal principles, etc.
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
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 전주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 근로기준법 제94조 제1항 [2] 근로기준법 제94조 제1항
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