beta
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2013.12.13 2012가합6489

임금

Text

1. The Defendant: 52,032,866 won to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party); 24,579,380 won to the appointed Party C; and 43,405,259 won to the appointed Party D.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company that manufactures, processes and sells sugar, smuggling, feed, etc., and the Plaintiff (appointed parties; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) are employees employed by the Defendant and work in the Defendant’s astronomical feed plant.

B. Wages paid to the employees belonging to the Defendant are determined by a collective agreement concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant’s astronomical feed feed plant and the RUB branch (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) and wage regulations. The main contents of each collective agreement on 2006 and 2012 are as follows. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19068, Feb. 1, 20

Article 38 (Payment of Wages, etc.). (Payment of Wages, etc.) Chapter 5 is amended. (Payment of Wages)

2. The 21st day of each month for the payment of wages;

(hereinafter referred to as "drawing") Article 41 (Reward) The Company shall take into account its achievements and pay bonuses in consideration of its members' results.

Provided, That 150% of each bonus shall be paid in December, 4,6,8, and 100% of each bonus payment shall be paid in 2,10.

C. The Defendant paid bonuses under the above collective agreement and wage agreements (hereinafter “instant bonus”) to its employees, including the Plaintiff, etc. on the 21st of each month of the payment date of wages. The Defendant, without including them in ordinary wages, calculated overtime allowance, night work allowance, holiday work allowance, holiday work allowance, and annual holiday work allowance (hereinafter “instant statutory allowance”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 2-2 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. In calculating the instant statutory allowance, the Defendant, including the Plaintiff, did not consider the instant bonus. The said bonus constitutes ordinary wage, which is regularly and uniformly paid to workers, and thus, the instant statutory allowance ought to be re-calculated based on the hourly ordinary wage calculated based on such calculation.