복지포인트의 임금성 및 통상임금성 인정 여부

Precedents have concluded that any reward given on a continual and regular basis as remuneration for work provided by an employee, who put his or her labor power under supervision and guidance of an employer having the obligation of payment pursuant to collective agreements, employment regulations, employment agreements and labor practices, constitutes a wage. Meanwhile, precedents have denied that (i) money and valuables to reimburse actual costs, (ii) one-off money and valuables, and (iii) money and valuables for beneficence cannot be deemed to have the attributes of wage. Since Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da26721 Decided December 21, 1995 discarded the theory of wage dichotomy, precedents are understood to have equally applied a general standard of determining whether any reward has the attributes of wage in determining whether money and valuables given out as welfare benefits constitute a wage, or, what is stated as “remuneration for work” under the Labor Standards Act. Precedents include cases holding that family allowances, daily expenses, food and drink expenses, and holiday gifts can be deemed as having the attributes of wage, and cases dismissing school fee subsidies for employee’s children, provision of company housing and meal expenses cannot be deemed as having the attributes of wage. Welfare points have been provided to employees in a number of workplaces in accordance with the selective welfare system that was introduced not so long ago as part of a corporate welfare scheme, and are used as online payment methods to purchase goods and services. First introduced at the end of 1990s and dubbed as the Korean version of the cafeteria plan in the United States, the selective welfare system was quickly disseminated to and established in not only private businesses but also state-owned companies, public agencies and local governments over the course of 10 years, and is based on the Framework Act on Labor Welfare with respect to the design and management of the scheme. Considering that welfare points offered under the selective welfare system are offered to all employees on a continual and regular basis pursuant to collective agreements or employment regulations, they can be considered as constituting a wage, or, in other words, remuneration for work. Many wage-related lawsuits have been filed with respect to disputes over determining whether these welfare points can be deemed as ordinary wages paid on a regular, fixed and consistent basis. Lower court decisions on this matter were categorized into those that acknowledged the attributes of wage and ordinary wage with respect to welfare points, and those that did not. The subject case summed up persistent disputes over the attributes of wage and ordinary wage with respect to welfare points in an en banc decision. The Majority Opinion denied that welfare points had the attributes of wage by underlining the aspect of a new form of corporate welfare scheme rather than viewing it as remuneration for work, in light of the provisions of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare that excludes working conditions, such as wage, from the concept of labor welfare, the chronology and background leading up to the introduction of the selective welfare system, and the purpose of the system. It took account of the characteristics of welfare points, including (i) limited use of welfare points, (ii) that they cease to exist after a one-year period, and (iii) that welfare points are allocated in a lump sum at the beginning of every year irrespective of provision of labor, the inconsistency with the principles of wage payment, and purpose-oriented perspective centered around the need for its protection as a wage. As for these points of arguments, the Dissenting Opinion affirmed that welfare points can be considered as having the attributes of wage and ordinary wage by arguing that: (i) deeming that welfare points cannot be considered as having the attributes of wage on grounds of its characteristics as welfare benefits is unreasonable; (ii) the selective welfare system is merely a combination of the various pre-existing welfare allowances that have the attributes of wage; and (iii) the allocation of welfare points is no different from a payment in currency. As for the same points, the Concurring Opinion acknowledged the attributes of wage with respect to welfare points but denied the attribute of ordinary wage. According to the subject case, it is difficult to acknowledge the attribute of wage at least with respect to welfare points provided to employees on the basis of the selective welfare system that is directly operated by the employer. The subject case reconfirmed the independent nature of the selective welfare system as a non-wage welfare scheme. Yet, even after the pronouncement of decision in the subject case, whether any money and valuables the employer offered as welfare benefits to the employees can be deemed to have the attributes of wage under the Labor Standards Act is a matter to be determined in individual cases through concrete subsumption. It is the author’s hope that the subject case provides a momentum for the accumulation of relevant cases and in-depth discussion in the academic arena going forward.