퇴직연금 제도를 둘러싼 법률관계에 대한 고찰

While retirement pensions have been introduced in Korea for almost 18 years, the scope of its application and amounts contributed has expanded considerably. There have also been noticeable changes in retirement pension systems, such as introduction of a default option system (i.e., automatic management method of retirement pension contributions), etc. Despite the significance of the retirement pension system, not many substantive legal review has occurred on the legal nature of the retirement pension system and how it should be dealt with during litigation. However, there is distinct difference between the severance pay system, where the employer pays a lump-sum amount (as deferred wages) to the employee at the time of retirement as compared to a retirement pension plan, which requires employers to contribute minimum amounts to an external institution (i.e., retirement pension provider) and which depending on the type of retirement pension, gives employees the right to directly manage the funds contributed. Due to such discrepancy, the issues that arise when handling disputes regarding retirement pensions are different from disputes that arise regarding severance pay. The right for an employee to claim severance pay arises when the employee retires, and the employer is the debtor that must pay the severance pay to the employee. With respect to a Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plan, while the employee similarly has the right to claim the retirement benefits at the time of retirement, depending on the rates contributed, the employee may have rights to claim retirement benefits from both the employer and retirement pension provider. Nonetheless, the employer will be deemed as having the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the employee receives the retirement benefits. With respect to a Defined Contribution (DC) Pension Plan, the employer only bears the obligation to pay a predetermined amount of contributions on the designated payment dates, and the retirement pension provider is responsible for paying the accumulated contributions to the individual employee's IRP account when the triggering event (e.g., retirement) occurs. Due to such difference, under a DB Pension Plan, the employer may be criminally liable for failure to pay retirement benefits within 14 days of the employee's retirement date. In contrast, under a DC Pension Plan, the only instance of which an employee bears criminal responsibility for overdue payment is when the employer fails to pay contributions and late interest within 14 days from the date of retirement. The employer is not otherwise liable for failure to pay the accumulated contributions to the employee's IRP account. With respect to civil liability under a DB Pension Plan, a 10-year statute of limitations may apply (standard statute of limitations for debt) as the current laws provide no basis for applying a shorter 3-year statute of limitations. With respect to contributions under a DC Pension Plan, a 3-year statute of limitations may apply as such contributions qualify as standard debt that has occurred within 1 year pursuant to the Civil Act. The statute of limitations to file a claim with respect to a DB Pension Plan will start running after the day of the employee's retirement, which is when the right may be exercised. However, with respect to a DC Pension Plan, the current legal framework regarding statute of limitations supports a finding that the statute of limitations should start running not after the day of retirement, but after the day that the relevant contributions are made. With respect to this matter, the District Courts and the Ministry of Employment and Labor have issued differing opinions.