(b) In a case where a labor contract entered into between the upper half and the lower half of the factory of a divided company contains the content of working conditions, such as service regulations and wages, whether the contract constitutes the rules of employment (affirmative), and whether a separate rules of employment, which apply to part of workers, may be established in one place of business (affirmative)

(c) Where the initial date of the number of years in continuous service is disadvantageous, and the rate of payment is less than the amount calculated under the provisions of the Labor Standards Act, the relation with the retirement allowance regulations;

B. The rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act includes the rules of working conditions, such as service discipline and wages, and if the reverse contract entered into between the upper half and the lower half of the factory of the divided company contains the rules of working conditions such as service discipline and wages, the reverse contract shall be the rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, and if it applies to the upper half and lower half of the company's employees, it shall be the rules of employment under Article 94 of the same Act, which shall be applied separately from the rules of employment applicable to the company's employees, but the separate rules of employment applicable to the part of the worker in the workplace in question may be established. In this case, the total of the two rules of employment shall be one of the rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act.

C. In a case where the retirement allowance regulation provides that the beginning date of the working year shall not be the date of actual employment, but if there is an unfavorable aspect to the worker, the payment rate shall not be the fractional one, and if the amount calculated under the above provision falls short of the amount calculated under the provisions of the Labor Standards Act, if the amount calculated under the above provision is less than the amount calculated under the provisions of the Labor Standards Act, the provision on the starting date shall be excluded only within the scope of the deficient amount and shall not be deemed null and void.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, with regard to the plaintiffs who were the workers of the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's bonus, overtime work allowance, holiday work allowance, and annual leave work allowance under the rules of employment and Labor Standards Act, the non-party company was entrusted each year to the team leader, and entered into an operation labor contract with the non-party company. The above contract is based on the product-specific rate table (or product-specific calculation rate table) agreed between the parties. The above rate-rate rate rate is determined by comprehensively deducting allowances and bonuses as prescribed in the Labor Standards Act, and when the non-party company's employees pay bonuses, the above rate-rate rate is determined to be 10,000,000 won for the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party workers's non-party workers' wages.

According to Articles 22, 46, and 48 of the Labor Standards Act, an employer shall specify the wages, working hours, and other working conditions for workers at the time of concluding a labor contract, and pay various allowances for overtime work, night work, holiday work, etc. in addition to basic wages. Thus, in principle, an employer shall determine basic wages by a labor contract and calculate various allowances incidental thereto. However, even if a contract was concluded with the worker’s consent to pay the total amount of the basic wages in advance as monthly pay with the worker’s consent in consideration of working hours, form of work, and nature of work, etc., the contract shall be deemed valid if it is deemed that there is no disadvantage to the worker in light of the collective agreement or rules of employment, and if it is deemed justifiable in light of all circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu474, Aug. 18, 198; 89Meu3218, Apr. 23, 191); and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Labor Standards Act.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on macroficial evidence, that the upper half of the Bupyeong Factory of the non-party company, including the plaintiffs, is not an employee under the rules of employment (Evidence A) of the non-party company subject to the application of the non-party company's employees, and held that the wages against the plaintiffs should be paid by the above manipulation labor contract, not by the above rules of employment.

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below that the upper half of the company including the plaintiffs is not an employee under the above rules of employment, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of employment as pointed out in the lawsuit, and therefore, the rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act contains the contents of the rules of employment such as service rules and wages, and the above contract contains the contents of the rules of employment such as service rules and wages. Thus, the above operation labor contract contains the rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, and it applies to the upper half of the company, separate from the rules of employment under subparagraph 1, which applies to the employees of the non-party company Gap, which applies to the non-party company's employees, but in this case, the total of the two rules of employment can be one of the rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, which applies to the part of the workers in accordance with the characteristics of the worker's occupation. Therefore, the above operation labor contract should not be applied to the non-party company Gap.

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal:

If a retirement allowance provision provides that the beginning date of the year of continuous service shall not be the date of actual employment but the date later, and if there is an unfavorable aspect to a worker, the payment rate shall not be the fractional system, and if the amount calculated under the above provision falls short of the amount calculated under the provisions of the Labor Standards Act, the provision on the starting date shall be excluded only within the scope of the deficient amount and shall not be null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1409, Feb. 24, 1987).

Therefore, the court below is just in determining whether the retirement allowance provision under the above operation labor contract violates the Labor Standards Act, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Labor Standards Act as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. The above argument is without merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)