연차유급휴가제도의 해석상 쟁점 - 특히 “유급”의 의미를 중심으로 -

초록

This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the legal implications of the "paid" aspect within the annual leave system. In light of recent ordinary wage litigation, which has triggered a widespread reassessment of various allowances—including weekly rest allowances—this study focuses on clarifying the legal nature of annual leave pay. In the context of the annual paid leave system, the term "paid" signifies that wages continue to be paid without loss, as if labor had been provided, even though the obligation to work is exempted during the leave period. Consequently, the payment received during leave is "leave wages" (Urlaubsentgelt); annual leave pay is not an independent allowance but is precisely the wage the worker would have earned had they performed their duties. The fundamental principle for calculating leave wages is to ensure they remain at the same level as the wages the worker would have received if they had worked. This is referred to as the "Principle of Preventing Wage Loss." Accurately understanding and applying this principle—while considering various employment types and wage structures—will not only prevent legal disputes but also serve as a foundation for boosting worker morale and establishing healthy labor-management relations. Annual leave is not merely a matter of monetary compensation; it is a fundamental right for the health and safety of workers. The "rest-centered" paradigm demonstrated by German and EU precedents provides a significant milestone for the South Korean system, which has historically been "compensation-centered." Aligning with these international trends, South Korea must redefine its annual leave system as a genuine method for labor reproduction rather than a mere means of wage preservation. Accordingly, the legal nature and eligibility requirements for allowances in lieu of unused leave (annual leave transition pay) must be re-examined. Furthermore, the requirements for the establishment of leave rights should be restructured to suppress the occurrence of unused leave. While current law requires an 80% attendance rate over a one-year probationary period, there is a need to shorten this period to six months, following the examples of Europe and Japan. If the qualifying period and the usage period operate within a single year, the system could be managed with significantly greater clarity and simplicity.

키워드