복지포인트의 임금해당성 — 대법원 2019.8.22., 선고 2016다 48785 판결을 중심으로 —

Wage-related lawsuits are underway in various areas, and it is likely that more will soon be filed. This is a welcome phenomenon as it supports the accumulation of judicial precedents on the nature of welfare points as wages, thereby increasing their applicability in the workplace. However, such cases can also deteriorate into controversy over whether all benefits and valuables provided by employers are wages or not, which can eventually increase the likelihood of increased legal expenses and increased conflict between labor and management. Therefore, the recent en banc judgment on welfare points has significant implications. Thus far, wage-related lawsuits have taken a dualistic approach. First, it must be determined whether welfare points are “consideration for the provision of work” that depends on a direct or intimate connection to work itself. Second, this consideration for the provision of work must be affirmed through judgements that typically involve the terms “regular and continuous” and “the existence of an obligation to pay.” The Supreme Court’s recent judgement takes a fundamental approach by determining whether welfare points are wages using the concept of “consideration for the provision of work.” In this approach, welfare points are or are not classified as wages based on (1) whether welfare points comply with the meaning and purpose of welfare points as selective welfare, (2) the current principles of wage payment and payment methods, and (3) the legal principles of wage payment and protection. This Supreme Court ruling is significant because it sets future standards for the interpretation and judgements of cases addressing the nature of welfare points as wages; this ruling is the most recent en banc judgement since former rulings by the Supreme Court’s subdivision on the cases of special performance bonuses and of a public institution’s management performance bonuses. In other words, this verdict stipulates that, when judging whether certain valuables were provided as consideration for work, the existence of an obligation to provide these valuables must be deemed directly or closely related to the provision of work. This verdict is meaningful because it attempts to clearly define the standards for judging whether welfare points should be considered a wage, thereby clearing up confusion in related cases.