All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2015Da60207 Decided October 18, 2019 【Restitution of Unjust Enrichment】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Whether a trade union may impose such disposition as restitution, renunciation or postponement of payment upon wages that were either actually paid or the guaranteed right to claim payment had already been secured on the sole basis of a collective agreement between the trade union and an employer without an individual worker’s consent or authorization (negative) [2] In the case where: (a) Stock Company A running a commercial taxi transport service concluded a collective agreement with a trade union that was composed of its taxi drivers, reaching an agreement containing the following: (i) “the time of conclusion shall be applied retrospectively from the enforcement date of Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act newly enacted on December 27, 2007; (ii) the company shall pay the difference of the increased monthly wages retroactively to its workers; and (iii) the workers shall deposit the increased difference of the income derived from providing transportation service into the company’s account retroactively”; (b) as the collective agreement was delayed, Stock Company A paid wages calculated in accordance with the previous wage agreement to Party B and others who were taxi drivers; (c) subsequently, Stock Company A and the trade union contracted wage negotiation including fixed work hours shorter than those before and increase in the amount of taxi commissions, and Stock Company A claimed return of the increase of taxi commissions retroactively under the foregoing agreement against Party B and others, the case holding that, even though the trade union may not commit an act of disposition demanding restitution of the part of the wages already paid to Party B and others in the name of the increase of taxi commissions on the sole basis of the aforementioned negotiation and wage agreement, unless there is an individual worker’s consent or authorization, the lower court, which determined contrary to this, erred by misapprehending the legal principle |
|
