It is not possible to see that the Defendant guaranteed workers F the annual paid leave of 1 to 2 every month.

One of the arguments is that E set the 10th day of each month in consideration of the characteristics of the work of the medical care protection company, and it is difficult to regard E as a paid leave.

If so, workers F used annual paid leave or substituted annual paid leave for a specific working day.

However, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant’s 1-2-day paid leave days in E operated by the Defendant to the worker F, and ② the medical care protection company working in E is also recognized as the above worker; ② the medical care protection company working in E has set a ten-day day (i.e., the total of the ten-day paid leave days designated additionally by the medical care protection company on Saturdays during the given month (ordinary eight-day day) and the total of the ten-day paid leave days designated additionally by the medical care protection company during the given month; and in E, each medical care protection company has used the designated leave day on the 10th day of each month by reflecting the designated leave day when preparing the work schedule. Although it is not specified that any day during the 10-day leave day is deemed a substitute day for the next month, each of the above 10-day paid leave days after excluding the number of Sundays days during the given month, and each of the E-day paid leave or the service schedule has been provided.