Supreme Court: Allowances Paid with Goods Exchange Vouchers Also Recognized as Ordinary Wages

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Supreme Court has ruled that vouchers used at company convenience stores must also be included in ordinary wages.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Park Sang-ok) announced on the 13th that it overturned the second-instance ruling, which had ruled against 27 bus drivers including Mr. Kim in their wage claim lawsuit against bus company A, and remanded the case to the Daejeon High Court.

The court stated, "The CCTV allowance paid in the form of vouchers is regularly, uniformly, and fixedly paid, so it is included in ordinary wages," adding, "Even if the allowance was paid as reimbursement for actual expenses and issued as company-issued purchase vouchers, the same applies."

It further explained, "The lower court erred in its understanding of the law regarding wages and ordinary wages, which affected the judgment," and sent the case back to the lower court.

Mr. Kim and others filed a wage lawsuit demanding additional payment, arguing that "the company excluded the CCTV management allowance paid in vouchers from ordinary wages when calculating various allowances and retirement pay."

Company A began issuing purchase vouchers worth 10,000 won to employees as an allowance for CCTV management after replacing outdated CCTV systems in January 2012. Drivers could use these vouchers to buy cigarettes, beverages, gloves, and other items at the company convenience store.

Whether non-cash benefits can be considered ordinary wages was a key issue in the trial.

Mr. Kim and others argued, "Since all drivers who reported to work on the day received the allowance, it should be included in ordinary wages."

On the other hand, Company A countered, "The vouchers were provided as reimbursement for consumable supplies and not as compensation for labor, so they should be excluded from ordinary wages."

The first trial court ruled in favor of Mr. Kim and others, stating, "The CCTV allowance cannot be excluded from the scope of ordinary wages simply because it was paid in kind rather than cash."

However, the second trial court rejected their claims, stating, "Providing items necessary for bus operation is a measure for employee welfare or to supply items needed for work, and it is difficult to consider it as compensation for labor."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.