beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.29 2019나31251

임금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From October 5, 2003 to April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff served as a news reporter by the Defendant, a media company engaging in news providing business, publishing business, online newspaper publishing business, etc.

B. After the regular working hours, the Defendant, a media organization, operated the system on duty at the overall level of the editing bureau (hereinafter “state watch”) and on duty at the level of individual department (hereinafter “department watch”) for the purpose of preparing for cases and accidents that occur due to the continuous and sudden occurrence of news provision.

C. According to the Defendant’s operation of the watch keeping service system, the Plaintiff had been on the watch keeping service and the watch keeping service once a month from April 2014 to February 2017, which was around the time of his retirement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received allowances as prescribed in the collective agreement concluded between the Defendant and his employees.

The Plaintiff retired from office without using 10 days of annual paid leave in 2014, and was paid 58,221,201 won (including the amount of original paid leave) from the Defendant on April 30, 2017 as retirement allowance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the Plaintiff’s work on duty has the same nature as that of ordinary work, the Defendant paid only a fixed amount of allowances to the Plaintiff, despite having paid the Plaintiff an amount calculated by adding 50% of ordinary wage to the ordinary work on night work or holiday work pursuant to Article 56 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a fixed amount of allowances (i.e., the Plaintiff, 49,161,247 won (=total amount of unpaid work allowances equivalent to the total difference between the above amount (i.e., KRW 31,57,448 on the country watch 31,57,583,79), and (ii) the amount of unpaid work allowance which was not received on the wind that calculated the average wage without including such unpaid work allowance, = retirement allowance of KRW 14,29,190