Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
No statutory 20 percent delay interest on interim settlement severance pay
Supreme Court, Mar. 12, 2026, 2025Da214123 (judgment)
Case name: 임금[재직 중 중간정산 퇴직금에 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항에 따른 연 20%의 지연이율을 적용할 수 있는지가 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When calculating delay damages on severance pay interim-settled and paid to an employee before retirement under Article 8(2) of the Worker Retirement Benefit Security Act, do the 20 percent annual rate and the 14-day payment period of Article 37(1) of the former Labour Standards Act and Article 17 of its Enforcement Decree apply?
Holding
No. In principle, an employer that does not pay within 14 days of the ground for payment must pay delay interest at 20 percent a year, but that rule targets lump sums paid on death or retirement under Article 36 of the Labour Standards Act and the retirement benefit scheme. Severance pay interim-settled before retirement cannot be said to be such a lump sum, and the retirement benefit statutes impose no 14-day settlement duty for it. There is also concern that imposing an economic sanction for late payment would weaken employers' incentive to agree to interim settlement, so the 20 percent rate and Article 17 do not apply.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 사정들을 종합적으로 고려하면, 근로자의 재직 중 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금에 대한 지연손해금을 계산할 때에는 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령 제17조는 적용되지 아니한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Taking these circumstances into consideration in a comprehensive manner, when calculating the delay damages on intermediate settlement retirement pay paid to an employee during his or her employment, Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act cannot be regarded as applying.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이러한 사정들을 종합적으로 고려하면, 근로자의 재직 중 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금에 대한 지연손해금을 계산할 때에는 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령 제17조는 적용되지 아니한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Taking these circumstances into consideration in a comprehensive manner, when calculating the delay damages on intermediate settlement retirement pay paid to an employee during his or her employment, Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act cannot be regarded as applying.
Factors
- 퇴직급여제도는 기본적으로 근로기준법 제36조와 같이 퇴직하는 근로자에게 급여를 지급하기 위한 제도인 점
- 근로자의 퇴직 전에 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금이 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항의 적용 대상인 퇴직급여제도에 의하여 지급되는 일시금에 해당한다고 단정하기 어렵다
- 퇴직급여법은 중간정산 퇴직금에 대하여는 퇴직금 등과 달리 14일 이내의 청산의무에 관한 규정을 두지 않았고
- 중간정산 퇴직금은 주택구입 등 일정한 사유가 있는 경우에 한하여 근로자와 사용자의 중간정산 합의에 따라 지급되는데
- 사용자가 근로자의 중간정산 요구를 승낙할 유인을 약화시켜 퇴직금 중간정산제도의 실효성을 저해할 우려도 있다
Unofficial English translation
• the fact that the retirement benefit system is, in principle, a system designed to pay benefits to employees who retire, as in Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act
• it is difficult to conclusively regard intermediate settlement retirement pay paid before an employee's retirement as a lump-sum payment paid under a retirement benefit system that is subject to Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act
• the Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act contains no provision on the duty to settle within 14 days with respect to intermediate settlement retirement pay, unlike retirement pay, etc., and
• intermediate settlement retirement pay is paid, only where there are certain grounds such as the purchase of a home, pursuant to an agreement on intermediate settlement between the employee and the employer, and
• there is also a concern that it may undermine the effectiveness of the intermediate settlement system for retirement pay by weakening the incentive for an employer to accept an employee's demand for intermediate settlement
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
근로자의 재직 중 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금에 대한 지연손해금을 계산할 때에는 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령 제17조는 적용되지 아니한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
When calculating the delay damages on intermediate settlement retirement pay paid to an employee during his or her employment, Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act cannot be regarded as applying.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What rate of delay damages, if any, does an employer pay on interim settlement severance pay that is not settled within the period agreed between the parties?
An amendment to Article 37(1) of the Labour Standards Act or Article 17 of its Enforcement Decree that expressly brings interim settlement severance pay within the statutory rate would require this entry to be read again. So would a later decision fixing the rate of ordinary default interest for a delayed interim settlement.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 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 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reads the holding as weighing several combined circumstances, while the independent reads it as stating a rule that the statutory rate does not apply to such payments.
근로자의 재직 중 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금에 대한 지연손해금을 계산할 때에는 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령 제17조는 적용되지 아니한다고 보아야 한다.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary treats the holding as setting a new standard, while the independent could not confirm a precedent, since the input text does not identify a cited prior case.
근로자의 재직 중 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금에 대한 지연손해금을 계산할 때에는 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령 제17조는 적용되지 아니한다고 보아야 한다.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 30 May 2025 (2023Na2058221), held that the non-local duty allowance the defendant paid to Plaintiff 1 reimbursed extra costs incurred in a special working environment, so it was a reimbursement and welfare payment and not wages. It also held that port operation grade 5 officers were expected to be promoted to grade 4 or above and so were not a 'social status', and that no material showed their duties, responsibilities and authority were essentially the same as those of grade 4 and above, rejecting the claim that paying them a different holiday bonus violated the work rules, Article 11 of the Constitution or Article 6 of the Labour Standards Act. On the third issue it held that the statutory 20 percent rate of Article 37(1) of the former Labour Standards Act did not apply to severance pay interim-settled and paid during employment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error on any of the three grounds. It held the appellate findings on the allowance and on the holiday bonus were sound and did not misstate the law on wages or on discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 11 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Labour Standards Act. On the third ground it set out the applicable law in full and affirmed that the statutory rate does not reach severance pay interim-settled during employment, so all the plaintiffs' appeals were dismissed with the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- Severance pay or other lump sums paid after the employment relationship ends, where the employer must settle within 14 days of the ground for payment, since the decision relies on the absence of such a duty for interim settlement.
- A claim for delay damages on interim settlement severance pay at a rate other than the statutory 20 percent, since the decision decides only whether the rate of Article 37(1) of the former Labour Standards Act and Article 17 of its Enforcement Decree applies.
- Late payment of wages due on death or retirement, which Article 37(1) of the former Labour Standards Act does cover.
Record verification notes
Check whether the payment was made during employment under an interim settlement agreement made for a stated reason such as buying a home, since the Court's reasoning turns on that feature. Then confirm which version of the Labour Standards Act and its Enforcement Decree governs the payment date, as the decision applies the texts before the amendment of 22 October 2024 and 8 April 2025. Finally separate this claim from any claim for delay damages at a rate the decision does not address.
From the official text
Points at issue
근로자의 재직 중 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금에 대한 지연손해금을 계산할 때 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령 제17조에서 정한 이율이 적용되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the interest rate prescribed in Article 37(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act applies when calculating the delay damages on intermediate settlement retirement pay paid to an employee during his or her employment (negative)
Summary of the holding
구 근로기준법(2024. 10. 22. 법률 제20520호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령(2025. 4. 8. 대통령령 제35436호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제17조에 따르면, 사용자는 "근로기준법 제36조에 따라 지급하여야 하는 임금 및 근로자퇴직급여 보장법(이하 ‘퇴직급여법’이라 한다) 제2조 제5호에 따른 급여(일시금만 해당된다)의 전부 또는 일부"를 그 지급 사유가 발생한 날부터 14일 이내에 지급하지 아니한 경우, 그다음 날부터 지급하는 날까지의 지연일수에 대하여 연 20%의 비율에 의한 지연이자를 지급하여야 함이 원칙이다. 위 각 규정은 근로기준법 제36조에 따라 근로자가 사망 또는 퇴직한 경우 지급되어야 하는 임금 및 퇴직급여법 제2조 제5호에 따른 급여 중 퇴직급여제도에 의하여 지급되는 일시금에 적용된다. 그런데 퇴직급여제도는 기본적으로 근로기준법 제36조와 같이 퇴직하는 근로자에게 급여를 지급하기 위한 제도인 점(근로기준법 제34조, 퇴직급여법 제4조 제1항)을 감안하면, 퇴직급여법 제8조 제2항에 따라 근로자의 퇴직 전에 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금이 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항의 적용 대상인 퇴직급여제도에 의하여 지급되는 일시금에 해당한다고 단정하기 어렵다. 또한 위 각 규정은 근로자의 퇴직 등으로 근로관계가 종료될 경우 사용자가 지급 사유가 발생한 때로부터 14일 이내에 임금 및 퇴직금 등 퇴직급여제도에 따른 일시금을 지급하여야 할 의무가 있음을 전제로(근로기준법 제36조, 퇴직급여법 제9조 제1항, 제17조 제2항, 제3항), 그 청산의무를 불이행한 사용자에 대하여 경제적 제재를 가함으로써 해당 의무의 이행을 유도함에 취지가 있다. 그런데 퇴직급여법은 중간정산 퇴직금에 대하여는 퇴직금 등과 달리 14일 이내의 청산의무에 관한 규정을 두지 않았고, 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항이 중간정산 퇴직금에 대하여 그와 같은 청산의무를 새로이 창설하는 취지의 규정이라고 볼 수도 없다. 중간정산 퇴직금은 주택구입 등 일정한 사유가 있는 경우에 한하여 근로자와 사용자의 중간정산 합의에 따라 지급되는데, 그 지연 지급을 사유로 경제적 제재를 가한다면, 사용자가 근로자의 중간정산 요구를 승낙할 유인을 약화시켜 퇴직금 중간정산제도의 실효성을 저해할 우려도 있다. 이러한 사정들을 종합적으로 고려하면, 근로자의 재직 중 지급되는 중간정산 퇴직금에 대한 지연손해금을 계산할 때에는 구 근로기준법 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령 제17조는 적용되지 아니한다고 보아야 한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Provisions referred to
구 근로기준법(2024. 10. 22. 법률 제20520호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제37조 제1항, 구 근로기준법 시행령(2025. 4. 8. 대통령령 제35436호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조, 근로기준법 제34조, 제36조, 근로자퇴직급여 보장법 제2조 제5호, 제4조 제1항, 제8조 제2항, 제9조 제1항, 제17조 제2항, 제3항
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