Earticle

초록

영어

In the past, legal disputes between labor and management were due to conflicts of interest between labor and management. It is different now. The ambiguity and flaws in the legal regulations themselves have sparked conflict between labor and management, and have been causing unnecessary conflicts in the workplace for a long time, especially over wages. It must be a pity. Only the normative risk should be minimized. To this end, it seems important to clarify the contents of labor-related laws and regulations and reflect the changed labor realities. The target judgment is a case of an exceptional case where the fixed allowance is the first wage, not the monthly wage, and it is real, and only the payment is made on a monthly basis. If the fixed allowance is paid on a monthly basis for city/daily workers, in principle, the existing Supreme Court case law that the fixed allowance should be regarded as including the main leave allowance is not changed. Conflict over wages must be resolved through genuine will between the parties. It is best if there is an explicit agreement between the parties. However, if there is no agreement between the parties, a legal dispute arises. Resolving legal disputes should be a way of estimating true intentions. It can be calculated on a daily basis when paying workers. It can also be calculated on a monthly basis. Wage payments can also be made on a daily basis. It can be paid on a monthly basis. It is not illegal. However, the calculation and payment must be distinguished. Clarity is the most important factor in resolving legal disputes over wages. There should be no conflict between employers and workers about wages. Today wages are calculated in a way that determines the total amount. It is rarely calculated on a daily basis and statutory allowances are calculated separately. This is true of the industrial environment and the reality of the labor market. It is wrong to overlook this point and emphasize only the provisions of the labor law. The gap between law and reality grows.

한국어

최근 대법원이 시급제 또는 일급제 근로자에게 매월 일정기간마다 지급되는 고정수당에 근로계약･단체협약 등에서 달리 정하지 않는 한 법정수당인 주휴수당이 포함되어 있지 않다고 설시하면서 월 단위 고정수당을 둘러싼 논란이 지속되고 있다. 이 판결은 시급/일급제 근로자에게 고정수당이 월단위로 지급되더라도 그 산정방식 등에 비추어 볼 때 그 실질이 일급에 해당할 수 있으며, 그러한 예외적인 경우라면 고정수당에 주휴수당이 포함된다고 볼 수 없다는 취지이다. 월급으로서 고정수당에는 원칙적으로 주휴수당이 포함되며, 시급/일급에는 그러하지 않다는 종래 대법원의 입장은 여전히 견지되고 있음에 유의해야 한다.

목차

국문초록
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 주휴수당의 법적 성질과 통상임금 간의 관계
Ⅲ. 임금의 산정단위와 지급주기
Ⅳ. 시급/일급/월급에의 주휴수당 포함 여부
Ⅴ. 시급/일급제 근로자에 대한 월 단위 고정수당의 법적 성격
Ⅵ. 고정수당의 법적 실질에 관한 검토
Ⅶ. 결론
참고문헌

키워드

저자

• 권혁 [ KWON, HYUK | 부산대학교 법학전문대학원 교수, 법학박사 ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  노동법논총 [The Journal of Labor Law]

• 간기

  연3회

• pISSN

  1229-4314

• 수록기간

  1998~2025

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 336 DDC 363