이 논문은 대법원의 ‘2012다89399 전원합의체 판결’을 사법학(私法學)의 이론에의하여 비판적으로 고찰한 것이다. 다수의견은 이번 판결에서, 정기상여금은 그 성질상 통상임금에 해당하므로 정기상여금을 통상임금에서 제외하기로 하는 노사합의가 근로기준법에 반하는 경우 그 효력은 인정될 수 없다고 보았음에도 불구하고, 노사가 임금협상을 하면서 정기상여금을 통상임금에서 제외하기로 합의하였고 일정한요건이 더해지는 특별한 경우 비록 이런 노사합의가 강행규정에 반하더라도 신의성실의 원칙에 의하여 그 노사합의의 무효를 주장할 수 없으므로 정기상여금을 다시통상임금에 산입하여 추가적인 법정수당을 청구할 수 없다고 하였다.
이 논문은 이번 판결의 반대의견이 다수의견의 신의칙 담론과 다투다가 놓쳐버린 쟁점, 특히 이번 판결을 통하여 근로기준법의 강행규정성을 배제한 노사합의의효력을 신의칙의 오용으로 정당화함으로써 계약법에서의 의사이론을 절대화하려는다수의견의 의도를 비판적으로 고찰한다. 아울러 정기상여금을 통상임금에서 제외한다는 노사합의가 강행규정에 반함을 이유로 그 노사합의가 무효임을 주장하는 것이비록 신의칙에 위배된다고 하더라도 이미 제공된 근로자의 노무급부 또는 사용자의지출 감소에 대한 부당이득은 근로자에게 정당하게 반환되어야 함을 영미법에서의원상회복이익과 대륙법에서의 급부부당이득을 중심으로 논증한다.
더욱이 이번 판결에서 통상임금에 관한 법리를 법에 따라 선언하여야 할 대법원이 근로기준법의 규범성을 무시하면서 최고의 법해석기관으로서의 지위를 망각하였는데, 이는 입법부와 헌법재판소의 권한을 부인한 것이며 궁극적으로 사법(私法)의절대화 및 사법(司法)의 정치경제적 역할을 적극적으로 수행한 것이다.
This article aims at critically examining the case of the SupremeCourt of Korea, 2012Da89399, in terms of the jurisprudence of theprivate law. In this judgment, the majority of the Supreme Courtargued that the validity can’t be recognized if the agreement oflabor union and management that excludes regular bonus that fallson under the ordinary wages violates the Labor Standard Act, andwhile the labor union and the management negotiate their wage,they came to an agreement that left regular bonus out ordinarywages. Although this agreement between labor union andmanagement goes against mandatory provision, in case of addingcertain conditions, they can’t argue the invalidity of the agreementof labor union and management by the principle of good faith. Hence, they can’t claim additional legal allowances, includingregular bonus within ordinary wages. This article critically weigh the issue that the minority didn’tdeal with and the intent of the majority intends to absolutize the‘will’ in contract law by justifying the effect of the agreementbetween labor union and management, excluding mandatoryprovision through this judgement. Further, focusing on therestoration interest in the anglo-american law and the unfair profit(Leistungskondiktion) in the continental legal system, thisarticle attempts to demonstrate that the restitution for the workwhich had been already provided should be returned although theclaim amounts to the breach of the principle of good faith. In addition, it must be pointed out that the Supreme Court forgotits own duty to declare the legal principle regarding the ordinarywage and thus its own status as a final interpreter of the law,ignoring the normativity of the Labor Standard Act. In short, theCourt denied the authorities of the legislative and the ConstitutionalCourt, and therefore revealed vividly the intention to absolutize theprivate law and performed an active political-economic role towardthe so-called judicial supremacy.
This article aims at critically examining the case of the SupremeCourt of Korea, 2012Da89399, in terms of the jurisprudence of theprivate law. In this judgment, the majority of the Supreme Courtargued that the validity can’t be recognized if the agreement oflabor union and management that excludes regular bonus that fallson under the ordinary wages violates the Labor Standard Act, andwhile the labor union and the management negotiate their wage,they came to an agreement that left regular bonus out ordinarywages. Although this agreement between labor union andmanagement goes against mandatory provision, in case of addingcertain conditions, they can’t argue the invalidity of the agreementof labor union and management by the principle of good faith. Hence, they can’t claim additional legal allowances, includingregular bonus within ordinary wages. This article critically weigh the issue that the minority didn’tdeal with and the intent of the majority intends to absolutize the‘will’ in contract law by justifying the effect of the agreementbetween labor union and management, excluding mandatoryprovision through this judgement. Further, focusing on therestoration interest in the anglo-american law and the unfair profit(Leistungskondiktion) in the continental legal system, thisarticle attempts to demonstrate that the restitution for the workwhich had been already provided should be returned although theclaim amounts to the breach of the principle of good faith. In addition, it must be pointed out that the Supreme Court forgotits own duty to declare the legal principle regarding the ordinarywage and thus its own status as a final interpreter of the law,ignoring the normativity of the Labor Standard Act. In short, theCourt denied the authorities of the legislative and the ConstitutionalCourt, and therefore revealed vividly the intention to absolutize theprivate law and performed an active political-economic role towardthe so-called judicial supremacy.
