경영성과급이 노동시장 격차에 미치는 영향 - 경영성과급의 임금성에 대한 판례 법리를 중심으로 -

The issue of whether management performance pay is wageable or not is not just a legal issue, but has a wide range of practical implications, including cost burden issues in the private and public sectors and labor market disparities. In addition, it is not the same as management evaluation pay in the public sector, so it is inappropriate to use the legal theory of the 2018 ruling on the wageability of management evaluation pay at the average wage. Looking at the 15 cases on management performance pay, we can draw several conclusions. First, the judgments of different courts are too different, and the approach to the factors for determining wageability is not formalized or consistent. Second, it is not clear that the determination of the "consideration for the work" specified in the wage definition clause of the Labor Standards Act is a prerequisite for the determination. Third, the majority of judgments overlook the essential part of management performance pay, the intention of the labor and management parties. Fourth, many of the cases that recognize the wageability of management incentives use inductive reasoning and easily recognize labor practices as accumulated facts in the past, and for the purpose of the average wage, they are not limited to the wageability of the average wage, but eventually determine whether it falls under the general wage under the Labor Standards Act, which raises concerns about legal stability. Lastly, management performance pay, regardless of its directness and closeness to the provision of labor by individual workers, is a product of various social and economic relationships and is evidence of and a factor that exacerbates labor disparities, but these livelihood characteristics are overlooked when determining its wageability. As stated by a majority of the Supreme Court in Welfare Point, in order to determine whether a particular payment constitutes wages, it is first necessary to determine whether the payment is made in exchange for labor, and to do so, it is desirable to determine whether the obligation to pay the payment can be considered directly or closely related to the provision of labor, and to determine wages through the continuity, regularity, and obligation of the payment. However, management performance pay is essentially a distribution of corporate profits and is far from being a wage in the first place. It should not be overlooked that more than half of the pending cases (9 out of the 15 cases listed in the text) are awaiting a decision by the Court of Appeals after reaching the same conclusion, and that the continuity, regularity, and obligation of the payment are not necessary, as it is difficult to see the direct or close connection between the provision of labor by the individual worker and the triggering of the payment obligation. Furthermore, due to the specificity of management performance pay, it should be considered as an area that requires legal judgments that are sensitive to social and economic aspects and labor disparities. In the future, based on the above systematic and consistent foundation, there should be a reasonably clear judgment that takes into account the livelihood specificity of management performance pay.