1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as cited by the court below, the court below held that, until the waiting room arrives at the waiting room for work, and the time coming out of the waiting room after completing work and starting work from the waiting room is not included in the actual working hours subject to the payment of wages, but the time required for work preparation in the waiting room, adjustment of work, and movement between the waiting room and the waiting room under the direction and supervision of the employer is included in the actual working hours subject to the payment of wages. In light of the evidence relation stated by the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of actual working hours such as theory of lawsuit or in the violation of precedents. The argument is without merit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that even if the defendant paid wages to the plaintiffs in excess of wages under the pretext of weekly leave allowance, statutory leave allowance, and monthly salary, the defendant shall not be allowed to make a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiffs under the principle of direct payment of wages.

However, since wages are to be paid in full directly to an employee, in principle, the employer's credit against the employee is not set off against the employee's wage claims. However, when wages are paid in excess due to errors in calculation, etc., it is reasonably close as to the time when the event was paid in excess, the adjustment of wages, and the substance of adjustment, and if the amount and method are not likely to undermine the stability of the employee's economic life, such as prior notice, or if the employee claims wages or retirement allowances that have not been paid during his term of office after his retirement, the employer may set off against the employer's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment for the excess amount of wages. The court below's rejection of the Defendant's claim for deduction of each excess amount of allowances in this case is unlawful in light of the above legal principles.

However, according to the records, the court below calculated the number of monthly holiday working hours of the plaintiffs during the period claimed by the defendant, calculated the wages already paid to the plaintiffs as holiday work allowances and the allowances paid in excess by the defendant, and calculated the wages to be paid by the defendant by appropriating them. In addition, since it is not recognized that the monthly holiday work allowances paid to the plaintiffs are paid in excess of the monthly holiday work allowances paid to the plaintiffs, the above illegality of the court below is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and there is no reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)