2. Judgment of the court below

A. The Defendant’s assertion that there was no obligation to pay shutdown allowances during the period of unpaid leave, as the Defendant consented to the agreement on whether to consent to “unfavorable leave” (1) to the implementation of unpaid leave from November 5, 2018, and that there was no obligation to give payment during the period of unpaid leave does not mean that the Defendant, in itself, agreed to waive the future wage claim regarding temporary leave allowances in advance.

However, it is not permissible to give up or waive wages in labor relations by mutual agreement between the employer and the employee with respect to wages (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da801, Sept. 28, 1976). In order to waive part of wages or change them more unfavorable than the previous one, clear expression of intention of the employee is required under objective circumstances where reasonable grounds exist in relation to the waiver of wages.

The reason is that employers prevent employers from de facto undermining their duty to pay wages to workers, while guaranteeing the workers' right to work guaranteed by the Constitution and the right to claim wages, which are the remuneration.

Therefore, in order to recognize that an agreement was reached as alleged by the Defendant in this case, the strict determination should be made.

Article 46 (2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that "Where the Labor Relations Commission has obtained approval from a Labor Relations Commission because it is impossible to continue its business due to any inevitable reason, notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Labor Relations Commission may pay a shutdown allowance that falls short of the standard prescribed in paragraph (1)." The "approval of the Labor Relations Commission" under the above provision refers to a shutdown allowance of not less than 70/100 of average wages