[2] The case holding that a comprehensive wage payment agreement was concluded between the parties to pay a certain amount every month under the pretext of basic monthly pay, the attendance allowance, the continuous service allowance, etc. regardless of the actual working days or working hours of workers taking into account the details of duties mainly performing surveillance or intermittent work and the peculiarity of the form of work

[3] The case holding that wage payment contract under the inclusive wage system concluded between the employee and the company is valid because it is not disadvantageous or unreasonable, in light of all circumstances such as the worker's free accommodation from the company and the worker's overtime work, night work, holiday work is naturally expected in light of the contents of the work

[2] The case holding that a comprehensive wage payment agreement was concluded between the parties to pay a certain amount every month under the pretext of basic monthly pay, the attendance allowance, the continuous service allowance, etc. regardless of the actual working days or working hours of workers, considering the details of mainly performing surveillance or intermittent work and the peculiarity of the form of employment

[3] The case holding that the wage payment contract under the inclusive wage system concluded between the employee and the company is valid because it is not disadvantageous or unreasonable to the worker, in light of all circumstances such as the worker's free accommodation from the company and the worker's overtime work, night work, holiday work is naturally expected in light of the contents of the work

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The defendant paid 5,078,450 won to the plaintiff Lee Jong-dae, 13,959,498 won to the plaintiff Lee Jong-dae, and 20% interest per annum from March 23, 2002 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 5% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry of Gap evidence 4-1 through 22, Gap evidence 5-1 through 20, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2-4, and there is no counter-proof.

A. The Plaintiffs, who are married couple, were employed by the Defendant Company from May 25, 1998 to March 23, 2002, and were employed by the Plaintiff Company as security guards, and the Plaintiff’s winners were employed as employees of the restaurant in the premises.

B. At the time of employment of the plaintiffs, the defendant company advertised that they want to view the guard room and restaurant days on condition that they provide accommodation. The plaintiffs reported and supported the above advertisement, and were employed by the defendant company on condition that the plaintiffs combined with the above amount of KRW 1,200,000.

C. During the above employment period, the Plaintiffs were provided 2 partitions of the back room of the guard room by the Defendant Company free of charge and resided therein, and the meals were provided at a cafeteria without compensation.

D. During the above employment period, the Plaintiff’s letter of the right to stay in the guard room from 08:0 to 19:00 (including one hour of rest) without any holiday, verified the number of foreign workers and vehicles entering the company. The Plaintiff’s letter of right to stay in the company from 07:30 to 23:30 (including two hours of rest) without any holiday, provided that the Plaintiff’s letter of right to stay in the company prepared for the occupation of one to two foreign workers in the company from 07:30 to 23:30 (including two hours of rest).

E. While receiving KRW 608,30 as the monthly salary on January 200, the Plaintiff’s right-holder received KRW 803,30 on February 2, 2002, which was gradually increased and at the time of retirement. The Plaintiff’s right-holder received KRW 776,660 as the monthly salary on January 200, but at the time of retirement received KRW 976,660 as the monthly salary on February 2, 2002.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that they did not receive the allowances of KRW 5,078,450 in total and KRW 13,959,498 in total from January 2, 2000 to February 2, 2002 even though they had worked overtime and holiday work in the defendant company beyond their original working hours, and they sought payment, while the defendant company concluded a so-called comprehensive wage agreement with the plaintiffs to pay the sum of the above allowances, and paid all wages accordingly, they cannot accept the claim of this case.

(b) Markets:

On the other hand, in a case where an employer concludes a wage payment contract based on the so-called comprehensive wage system with the content of the sum of the above allowances as monthly wage without calculating the basic wages in consideration of the working hours, the form of work and the nature of work, etc., in principle, the employer should determine the basic wages for workers and pay them in addition to the above allowances. However, in a case where an employer concludes a wage payment contract based on the so-called comprehensive wage system with the contents of the monthly wage without calculating the basic wages for the convenience of calculation, etc., it shall not be deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da24699 delivered on March 24, 1998) if it is deemed that there is no disadvantage to workers and it is justifiable in light of all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da24699 delivered on March 24, 199), regardless of the plaintiffs' actual working days or specific characteristics of work, etc., the Plaintiffs and the Defendant company did not have an agreement to pay a certain amount every month under the above comprehensive wage system, regardless of their basic monthly wage, work hours or specific circumstances.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, and it is revoked and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Judges Yu-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung Lee Jae-sung