A. From 21:30 to 02:00, E was temporarily and temporarily allowed to freely take the surface of the water, so the said hours cannot be deemed as working hours.

B. Since there are grounds for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., there is considerable reason for the employer to pay wages, etc.

and the defendant has had intention to do so.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination

A. Labor hours under the Labor Standards Act regarding the assertion of recess hours refer to the hours when an employee provides labor under the employer’s direction and supervision. However, even if an employee is a waiting time or a break time, etc., which is not actually engaged in work during the working hours, if that time is not a guarantee for free use by the employee, but is actually under the employer’s direction and supervision, such time is included in the working hours (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41990, Nov. 23, 2006). The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that E, from 21:30 to 02:00, actually under the employer’s direction and supervision.

The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the circumstances stated by the court below.

(1) If E does not leave his/her place of work, it cannot be deemed that the relevant time is guaranteed to be freely used.

(2) The security service provided by E shall be provided continuously, not only at a certain time, in light of the content and form of the service, and security guards shall provide the service when a civil petition, etc. is filed by a guest during the relevant hours.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is justified.