2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

1. Regarding the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the scope of ordinary wages, the lower court determined that: (a) CCTV allowances for working on board (the Defendant, according to the record, divided the bus operation area into “A” in the city, “A” in the city, “A” in the rural community, “A” in the rural community, “A” in the rural community, “A” in the rural community, and “A” in the city; (b) CCTV allowances for working on board, which uniformly paid the amount calculated as KRW 1,500 per day to all drivers operating the said area in a fixed manner in the course of operating the bus at the city; and (c) CCTV allowances, which uniformly paid the amount calculated as KRW 5,00 per day according to the number of working days, to all drivers who provided labor, regardless of the actual work performance, are all fixed wages that have been paid regularly and uniformly.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of ordinary wages, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to the calculation of working hours

A. When calculating an hourly ordinary wage as a monthly wage, the amount shall be calculated by dividing that monthly ordinary wage by the standard number of hours for calculation of the monthly ordinary wage (the average number of hours per year multiplied by the standard number of hours for calculation of weekly ordinary wage, divided by 12) (Article 6(2)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act). However, in cases where an employee receives a monthly wage or a monthly fixed allowance with basic pay as wages for agreed working hours in excess of the standard working hours prescribed in the Labor Standards Act, a fixed allowance paid in the form of a monthly wage or a monthly ordinary wage shall not be deemed as ordinary wage, and the total amount of the fixed allowance shall not be deemed as ordinary wage, since it includes a wage for paid holidays prescribed in Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act, which is not deemed as ordinary wage, and an extension and night work prescribed in Article 56 of the same Act, which is deemed as working on paid holidays, calculated by adding the total working hours per month to the agreed number of hours per month (the maximum working hours per month and night work hours per month).

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the collective agreement in 2007 provides that “working hours shall be eight hours a day and forty hours a week, and that overtime work may be conducted under the labor-management agreement in consideration of the characteristics of transportation business, taking into account the characteristics of transportation business,” “working hours and hours” shall be subject to separate wage agreement. The wage agreement in 2007 and the wage calculation details in 2007 provide that “the hours of work shall be from the starting time (the starting time of the company) to the starting time (the starting time of the company) to the closing time (the starting time of the company)” shall be subject to separate wage agreement. The wage agreement in 2007 and the wage calculation details in 10,609 shall be concrete and shall be paid 10,609 won for overtime work hours and 4,244 won for overtime work hours for two hours a day without classification of work hours after the morning and after the beginning. The wage agreement in 2008 and 209 also set the same period of working hours.

Therefore, the hourly ordinary wage for continuous service allowances paid in the form of a monthly salary or daily wage among the various allowances prescribed in the collective agreement and the wage agreement is a quid pro quo for contractual work hours that include overtime work and night work. Thus, the hourly ordinary wage for continuous service allowances paid in the monthly wage is calculated by dividing the daily standard working hours, the monthly average overtime hours, and the monthly average overtime and night work hours that take into account each additional rate, by the total number of working hours calculated by aggregating the monthly average working hours, the monthly average overtime hours, and the monthly average overtime and night work hours that take into account each additional rate, and the hourly ordinary wage for the daily wage for the allowances paid in the daily wage shall be calculated by the method that the daily average working hours are divided by the number of daily overtime and night work hours that take into account each additional rate in the daily standard working hours.

Unlike this, the judgment of the court below that calculated the hourly ordinary wage by excluding the annual working hours and night work hours, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit. Thus, each of the instant allowances and bonuses should be re-calculated in accordance with the hourly ordinary wage under the aforementioned method (the court below shall first examine whether the Defendant agreed with the employees, including the Plaintiffs, to exclude food and daily expenses from the base wage in calculating bonuses, and then point out that bonuses should be calculated accordingly).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Kim Jong-il