December 16, 2011

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties concerned; (b) evidence Nos. 1-1 to 4; (c) evidence Nos. 3-2; (d) evidence Nos. 5-1, 2; and (e) evidence Nos. 4-8; and (e) evidence Nos. 1 to 3; and (e) evidence Nos. 1 to 4-8; and (e

(a) Status of the original and the Defendant;

The Defendants are companies engaged in passenger transport business, etc., and Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 are bus engineers who belong to Defendant Hean Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hean Transportation”), and Plaintiffs 4 and 5 respectively to Defendant Saman Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Saman Transportation”).

(b) Details of the wage agreement on working hours and overtime allowances;

The Seoul Metropolitan Government Bus Transport Business Association to which the Defendants belong and the Korea Passenger Transport Union Federation of Seoul Metropolitan Government Bus Workers' Union to which the Plaintiffs belong have entered into an annual wage agreement, and considering the contents of the "working hours and overtime allowances" in the wage agreement between 2007 and 2010, the following are as follows.

(1) Five day per week is nine hours, including 8 hours of basic work and 1 hours of overtime work, and work hours falling short of or exceeding nine hours in the morning or after a day due to the characteristics of operation shall be offset on a monthly basis, instead of calculated on a daily basis, and break time during working hours.

(2) By June 30, 2008, 125% of the Si wage as to the first 4 hours of overtime work of June 30, 2008 and 150% of the Si wage as to the subsequent work hours, respectively, and 150% of the Si wage as to the overtime work from July 1, 2008.

C. The plaintiffs' forms of work

(1) Preparation and rearrangement of operations;

(A) The plaintiffs shall have one week a week and work in the morning and work in the morning. The plaintiffs shall imprint their seals on the attendance book before the start of operation after the start of operation, enter their names, routes, IDs, etc. in the deposit slip and affix them on the bus, put them in the container (in the case of an after-time service) and enter them in the container, start the bus operation after the start of operation of the terminal, return the ID to the business office after the completion of the bus operation and remove the fare (in the case of an off-time service, omitted) and then stop the bus in the parking lot and then leave the bus after cleaning the bus inside the bus.

(B) However, during the period from January 1, 2008 to August 22, 2009, who served at the wintering business office of the Defendant Saml Video Town, and during the period from November 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, Plaintiff 4 moved the bus from his business office to his business office after his work, while leaving the business office after his work.

(b) Bus operations and atmosphere;

(A) After entering his/her ID into a terminal, the Plaintiffs start the place of business and operate a bus again according to the route and end the ID again. After completing the first operation, the Plaintiffs have been waiting for the waiting time during the waiting time (which is not fixed due to road conditions, traffic conditions, etc.) while waiting for the employees in charge of the dispatch vehicle before the following driving time.

(B) The respective bus operation hours of the plaintiffs calculated on a monthly basis from January 2008 to December 2010 (the time when the plaintiff's ID enters a terminal in the bus) are as stated in the separate sheet "operation hours" column, and waiting time (after operation, waiting time after operation) is as listed in the separate sheet "air hours" column.

(c) gas filling and education;

The plaintiffs, separately from bus operation, charge gas in a charging station by themselves, and received a total of 8 hours in a year pursuant to Article 25 of the Passenger Transport Service Act. The gas filling time of the plaintiffs calculated on a monthly basis from January 2008 to December 2010 is the time stated in the separate sheet in the separate sheet in the annexed sheet by the plaintiff, and the education time is each stated in the annexed sheet in the annexed sheet in the annexed sheet.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In addition to bus operation hours, preparation and adjustment hours, waiting time, gas charging and training hours shall be included in the plaintiffs' working hours for each of the above hours, and where each of the above hours is included in working hours, the actual working hours of the plaintiffs calculated monthly from January 2008 to December 2010 exceeds the agreed working hours stipulated in the wage agreement. Thus, the defendants shall pay each overtime allowance equivalent to 150% of the agreed hourly working hours for the excessive working hours to the plaintiffs.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The Defendants’ respective rules of employment stipulate that the hours of preparation for operation shall be excluded from working hours, and the hours of preparation and adjustment shall be excluded from working hours, and even if they recognize them as working hours per day, it shall be sufficient for the Plaintiffs to use them freely without the direction and supervision of the Defendants. The waiting time shall be excluded from working hours as hours when the Plaintiffs can freely use them. If the preparation, adjustment and waiting time is excluded from working hours, the monthly unit working hours of the Plaintiffs do not reach the agreed working hours, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ request cannot be complied with.

3. Determination

(a) Whether it is included in working hours;

(1) Bus operation hours, gas filling time, and training hours;

There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the bus operation hours, filling hours, and training hours as seen above are included in the actual working hours.

(2) Preparation and rearrangement time

In light of the plaintiffs' duties for the preparation and adjustment of operation as seen above, the preparation and adjustment hours of operation are naturally included in the actual working hours as the time when the plaintiffs actually provided labor. According to the evidence No. 3-1, evidence No. 5-1, and evidence No. 5-2, the defendants are obliged to work for 30 minutes prior to the commencement of operation and check the vehicle condition. The defendants are ordering the plaintiffs to attend the bus for 10 minutes prior to the commencement of operation, and the defendant's preparation and adjustment hours of operation shall be recognized every 20 minutes prior to the commencement of operation, as alleged by the plaintiffs, in consideration of these facts and the plaintiffs' duties for preparing and arranging operation, as alleged by the plaintiffs, (i) the preparation and adjustment hours of operation calculated on a monthly basis from January 208 to December 2, 2010 are the hours stated in the separate Form No. 1 "Preparation for Operation" column.

(3) The waiting time;

The work hours under the Labor Standards Act refer to the time when workers provide labor under the direction and supervision of the employer. Even if workers do not actually engage in work during the work hours, the waiting time is not guaranteed to the workers free use as a rest time, but actually under the direction and supervision of the employer, such time shall be included in the work hours (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41990, Nov. 23, 2006). As seen above, the waiting time is not fixed by various external factors, the plaintiffs must prepare for the next operation in accordance with the direction of the employee in charge of the ship. The plaintiffs are going to maintain or inspect the vehicle or clean the vehicle, in addition to taking meals and rest during the waiting time, the defendants under the wage agreement allow the workers under their command to take part in the work hours, and if only bus hours are viewed as working hours, it shall be included in the waiting time under the agreement that most of the plaintiffs can not be seen as working hours under the direction and supervision of the employer.

(b) Calculation of extended working hours and allowances;

(1) As seen in the above paragraph (a) above, the excess working hours for each plaintiff calculated by including gas shock, education, preparation for operation, adjustment, and standby hours as stated in the separate sheet of "excess working hours". The above excess working hours are as stated in the separate sheet of "excess working hours". Under the wage agreement as seen above, 150% [the amount of the regular wage does not dispute between the parties, and as mentioned above, 125% of the regular wage is paid for the overtime working hours of the first 4 hours per week until June 30, 2008. Under the evidence No. 9-1 through No. 7, overtime work paid 125% of the regular wage is interpreted as applicable to the overtime working hours under the wage agreement, which are one day (22 hours per month) and as so, the amount of the unpaid allowance and the payable allowance shall be multiplied by the additional sheet of "150%" for the overtime work hours exceeding the agreed 9 hours per day.

(2) However, the Defendants paid to the Plaintiffs the amount stated in the attached Form “Review Allowance” column for the hours worked in excess of one A.M. during the overtime hours, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the amount of late night allowances and the fact that the amount should be deducted from the overtime allowances. Thus, if the amount of late night allowances is deducted from the unpaid allowances, the Defendants’ deduction of late night allowances is as follows: (a) overtime allowances to be paid to the Plaintiffs from January 2008 to December 2010.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, Defendant Hean Transportation Co., Ltd. shall pay to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 4,784,242, KRW 3,806,08, KRW 3,453,466, Plaintiff 3, and KRW 1,707, KRW 775, and KRW 3,697, and KRW 3,495, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from January 18, 2011 to February 1, 2012, which is the date of full payment, to Plaintiff 4.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Chang-chul