임금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company conducting housing management business, security service business, etc., and signed a contract on the consignment management of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant consignment contract”) with Defendant C Apartment (hereinafter “Defendant’s Council”) (hereinafter “Defendant’s Council”) (hereinafter “Defendant’s Council”) and from 2014 with the above consignment management (hereinafter “instant consignment contract”).
B. From October 22, 2014 to July 10, 2017, Defendant Company employed the Plaintiff as the security guard of the instant apartment and entered into an employment contract (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff each year from July 10, 2017, with the working hours of 24 hours and 4 hours per week, 3 hours per week, 4 hours at night (4 hours and 4 hours from 2015 to 4 hours from June 1, 2016, and 4 hours from June 2016).
C. On March 11, 2014, the Defendant Company obtained approval from the head of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office for the exemption from the application of supervisory labor workers as stipulated in Chapters IV and V of the Labor Standards Act with respect to the hours of work, recess, and holiday as stipulated in Articles 4 and V of the Labor Standards Act.
(hereinafter “this case’s exemption approval”) D.
Defendant Company recruited two guards on March 24, 2015, and obtained approval from the head of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office from the head of the Busan Regional Labor Office for exemption from application of the working hours, rest hours, and holidays stipulated in Chapters IV and V of the Labor Standards Act for surveillance workers.
E. The Plaintiff submitted a petition to the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office on the ground that the Defendants violated the Labor Standards Act and the Minimum Wage Act, but as a result of the investigation, the Defendants’ Labor Standards Act and the Minimum Wage Act.