Rulings on wages, minimum wage shortfalls and severance pay · 3 cases
This is an AI summary of the points published by the court, put in plain language. Always check the original for the exact content and conclusion of the ruling. It is not legal advice and cannot be applied as-is to other cases.
The three plaintiffs are Filipino nationals. They entered Korea as industrial trainees. For the first 2 years they worked as trainees, and from then until they left they worked as employees at the company's workplace, doing plastic injection molding and similar work. They claimed severance pay, and the first-instance court dismissed all of their severance pay claims. The plaintiffs appealed only the severance pay part.
What did the court decide?
The court held that, regardless of the name of the contract, a person who works under the company's direction and supervision and receives allowances and the like is a worker. It found that the plaintiffs did the same work as Korean workers and that there was no substantial difference between their work during the training period and afterward. It held that an agreement to give up severance pay in advance is invalid, and it did not accept the company's remaining arguments. The court ordered the company to pay each plaintiff 3,208,330 KRW and damages for late payment.
Two Chinese nationals came to work at a company in Korea as overseas-invested-enterprise industrial trainees. They sued the company, asking for 7,433,830 KRW each, plus interest, as the difference between the minimum wage set by the Minimum Wage Act and the wages already paid. The company lost in the first trial and appealed.
What did the court decide?
The appeals court set aside the part of the first-instance judgment that ordered payment above 7,433,830 KRW each plus interest (5% per year until the date of the appellate ruling, 20% per year from the next day), and dismissed the claim for that part. It dismissed the rest of the company's appeal. It ordered the company to bear all litigation costs.
Two Filipino nationals entered Korea as foreign industrial technical trainees and worked at a company as industrial trainees for 2 years. After the training period ended, they kept working at the same company until 15 June 2003, then left the company. They claimed from the company severance pay including the period worked as trainees, and compensation for emotional distress over discrimination in not paying severance pay.
What did the court decide?
The court held that the severance pay provisions of the Labor Standards Act did not apply to the period worked as industrial trainees. It found that an implied employment contract was formed between the company and the two people from the day after the training period ended until the date of leaving, and ordered payment of severance pay and delayed-payment damages for that period. It did not accept the claim for compensation for emotional distress, because the duty to pay severance pay arises after leaving the job, so discrimination during employment could not be found.
What do the Wages, Minimum Wage & Severance Pay rulings cover?
This collects 3 rulings on Rulings on wages, minimum wage shortfalls and severance pay. Each case is laid out as what happened, then how the court ruled.
Can I apply a ruling directly to my own case?
No. A ruling decides the facts of that one case, so the outcome can differ for another case. For your own situation, check with an official body such as the immigration office with jurisdiction.
Where can I read the original ruling?
Each case has a “view original” link to the public post on the Supreme Court of Korea website. KoreaMoa does not reproduce full rulings; it only provides summaries.
