[2] In a case where a local government paid overtime work allowances for a public official under its control that do not reach the actual overtime work hours, the case holding that the unpaid amount shall be additionally paid out of the overtime work allowances equivalent to the actual overtime work hours regardless of the scope of the budget formulated in the budget,

[2] The case holding that in a case where a local government paid overtime work allowances to a public official under its jurisdiction that do not reach the actual working hours, the unpaid amount shall be additionally paid out of the overtime work allowances equivalent to the actual working hours regardless of the scope of the budget provided for in the budget

1. Article 44(3) of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 8396 of Apr. 27, 2007) provides that “No money or valuables may be paid as remuneration for public officials unless otherwise provided for in this Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes.” Article 45(1) provides that “the matters concerning the remuneration of public officials shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” Based on the provision, Article 30 of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations provides that public officials may be paid necessary allowances in addition to the salary within budgetary limits. The provision on the types, scope of payment, payment, and payment of allowances and other matters necessary for the payment of allowances shall be separately prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The provision on allowances for local public officials (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1713 of Jan. 29, 2001; the same shall apply to the provisions on allowances for local public officials before the change of the name as above) provides that persons working outside working hours under an order shall be replaced with those working within the scope of 15 hours under Article 15(15) and 7(1) of the former Local Finance Act.

In full view of the provisions of the aforementioned relevant statutes, allowances for local public officials are set by statutes. As long as excess allowances, such as overtime work hours, night work hours, and holiday work allowances, are appropriated in the budget, local public officials may seek payment of overtime work allowances equivalent to the actual overtime work hours under the order of service, and this does not change with the fact that local governments included the excess work hours in the budget (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da7367, Sept. 22, 2000).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff 81's lawsuit taken place: the plaintiffs, except the plaintiff 81's lawsuit taken place, worked in the form of three or two classes of working hours, and worked in excess of 192 hours, which are the average working hours of public officials prescribed in the Public Officials Service Regulations, as public officials belonging to the water service headquarters under the defendant, and the defendant's water service headquarters prepared the "Guidelines for the Payment of overtime work allowances to the full-time workers" to pay overtime work allowances within three hours a day and not pay night work allowances. Accordingly, the budget was compiled from August 199 to March 200, to the above plaintiffs and the deceased, and the fact that the above plaintiffs, and the network plaintiffs 81, as public officials belonging to the water service headquarters under the defendant, are working in the form of two or more classes of working hours, and the defendant's water service headquarters prepared the "Guidelines for the payment of overtime work allowances to the full-time workers," and accordingly, the defendant should additionally pay overtime work allowances to the plaintiffs regardless of the extent and the above budget.

In contrast, the lower court determined that the Defendant paid overtime allowances in full by deeming that “within the scope of the budget” stipulated in the above-related statutes was the purport of having “within the scope of the budget actually compiled within the scope of the budget.” In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the payment of overtime allowances to local public officials, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part pointing this out

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench on the ground that there is an obvious clerical error in the judgment below and the judgment of the first instance

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)