복지포인트의 임금성 - 대법원 2019.8.22. 선고 2016다48785 판결(전합) 중심으로 -

Abstract

The Supreme Court recently determined that welfare-point was not wage (Supreme Courten banc Decision). As a result of the judgment, welfare-point is not, of course, included in ordinary wage.BR The majority opinion took the position of that welfare-point is derived from flexible employee benefit system, moreover, it is not wage because it is based on The FRAMEWORK ACT ON LABOR WELFARE. Among the financial advantage paid by employers to employees, it gave them room for employee benefit, not wages, to be officially established.BR However, it is not appropriate to actively consider employee benefit based on U.S. notions that have evolved around Company Welfare, even from legal judgment. The name welfare cannot be regarded as a criterion or an obstacle in determining wage. Rather, wage should be judged from a legal point of view. Although the company paid financial advantage to the worker in the name employee benefits, however, if it continues to be paid and has a payment obligation and the employee can dispose of the financial advantages paid, it should be regarded as a wage.BR The majority opinion is that the allocation of welfare-point cannot be regarded as a payment of wages. The majority opinion did not accept a flexible interpretation of the new method of payment.BR However, if an employee is granted the right to dispose of the financial advantages and, in effect, the employee is entitled to the disposal of the property interest, a flexible interpretation of all these means of payment of wages is also necessary.BR Therefore, allocating welfare-point to workers constitutes a payment of wages in itself.BR In addition, if the allocation of welfare-point means that wage payment exists, the assigned welfare-point should also be regarded as equivalent to ordinary wages. This is because the actual use or result of use does not affect the fixedness of determining ordinary wages because it is already a consideration for the work.BR There are concerns that the Supreme Court’s ruling could create an opportunity to narrow down the scope of future wages. In addition, the employer actively utilizes employee benefit ,which is not recognized in terms of wages, as a negotiating strategy for workers, I am very worried because worker interests can be violated.