1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

A. Regarding the scope of ordinary wages

(1) Ordinary wages defined in the Labor Standards Act as the basis for calculation of premium pay for overtime, night, and holiday work, advance notice allowance for dismissal, annual leave allowance, etc., and the minimum amount of average wage refers to money and valuables agreed to be paid as remuneration for contractual work ordinarily provided by an employee during a prescribed working hours, which are regularly, uniformly, and fixed.

Here, the term "fixed working hours" refers to money and valuables agreed to be paid by an employer and an employee with respect to the labor normally provided for in contractual work hours.

In addition, in order for a certain wage to belong to ordinary wages, it is uniformly paid.

A uniform payment of wages includes not only the payment to all workers, but also the payment to all workers who meet certain conditions or standards. The term "specified conditions" in this context must be fixed conditions in light of the concept of ordinary wages to calculate fixed and average wages.

Furthermore, a certain wage must be paid fixed in order for it to be included in ordinary wages. This refers to the "a fixed nature in which it is confirmed that it will be paid as a matter of course with respect to the work provided by an employee, regardless of its achievements, achievements, or other additional conditions," and "fixed wage" refers to the minimum wage that a worker who has worked on an optional day, regardless of the name of the wage, retires on the following day, is entitled to be paid as compensation for the daily work, even if he/she retires on the next day. Therefore, if an employee provided a contractual work on a voluntary day, regardless of whether the additional conditions are met, it is planned to be paid as a matter of course and whether

Fixed wages may be deemed fixed (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da399, Dec. 18, 2013).

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court determined that, after recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning, the deduction fee for driver’s mutual aid association cannot be deemed as wages as remuneration for work, and that it cannot be deemed as ordinary wages on the ground that the Defendant was either a mutually advantageous payment for the driver’s welfare

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on ordinary wages.

(3) In addition, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court recognized the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that food expenses are allowances of the nature of compensating for actual expenses for the welfare of workers, and cannot be deemed as ordinary wages on the ground that they cannot be deemed as having

According to the records, the defendant delivered a food ticket to all drivers who have provided labor, and paid a food room in the form that allows them to provide meals in a cafeteria designated by the defendant: Provided, That in the case where the drivers are unable to provide meals to the company according to the operation section, the defendant paid a food room in cash in the amount of KRW 4,00 for the outside so that they can provide meals to the company; ② even in the case where the drivers are eating outside the company, the recovery vary depending on the operation section; ③ the specific drivers did not operate a specified line; ③ even if they did not provide meals, the fact that the defendant did not exchange the food ticket paid by the driver in cash; and ③ the fact that the wage agreement in this case provides the defendant's food payment obligation in the form of the wage agreement in this case. In light of the above legal principles, in this case, it cannot be said that the food room is a uniform payment of contractual work or money and valuables, which is an agreement to provide ordinarily during contractual work hours, or that it does not constitute ordinary wages.

Therefore, while the reasoning of the lower judgment is somewhat inappropriate, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is erroneous.

As a result, the determination is justifiable, and there is no error by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on ordinary wages, which affected the conclusion of

(4) On the other hand, the lower court’s determination that the daily allowance is an allowance with the nature of compensating actual expenses for the welfare of workers, and that it does not constitute ordinary wages on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that it was regularly and uniformly paid, is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the defendant is aware of the fact that all drivers who provide labor have paid daily allowances of 1,00 won per day according to the number of days of attendance under the name of welfare expenses stipulated in the wage agreement of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below. Such daily allowances are different depending on the number of working days, but it is confirmed that a certain amount would be paid if they provide contractual work on the working day. Thus, it is determined that a certain amount of money would be paid regularly

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on ordinary wages, which determined that daily expenses do not constitute ordinary wages.

B. As to the calculation of bonuses and retirement allowances

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, the lower court, while calculating the average wage, which serves as the basis for the calculation of retirement allowances, reflected only food expenses of KRW 4,500, daily allowance of KRW 1,000, and excluded annual allowance of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) in the case of Plaintiff A, Selection Party B, and E, and excluded food and eggs from calculating the average wage that serves as the basis for the calculation of bonuses. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Regarding the scope of ordinary wages

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, the lower court, based on ① work allowances to pay the daily known amount according to the area driven by workers, and ② work days.

The Supreme Court held that the CCTV allowances that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party A, B, and C) paid the amount of 6,000 won per day (However, the amount of 5,000 won per day) and the continuous service allowances that the amount of 9,000 won per month to be paid to the workers who have served for more than a year is a fixed wage that has been paid regularly and uniformly regardless of actual work performance, since the continuous service allowances that the amount of 9,00 won per month was paid every year.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on ordinary wages.

B. As to the calculation of working hours

(1) 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, where an employee receives a monthly wage or a monthly fixed allowance with basic hourly wage as wages for agreed working hours in excess of the standard working hours prescribed in the former Labor Standards Act, a fixed allowance paid in the form of a monthly wage or a monthly wage shall not be deemed ordinary wage, because the fixed allowance paid in the form of a monthly wage includes wages for paid holidays prescribed in Article 55 of the former Labor Standards Act, which cannot be deemed as ordinary wage, and the total amount of the fixed allowance shall not be deemed as ordinary wage. In such a case, deeming that he/she worked on paid holidays, including the agreed working hours (the respective premium rates for extended hours and night work hours) and then is deemed as having been paid in the same manner as the hourly ordinary wage rate of 10 months or 20.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, and the records, the collective agreement in 2007 determined that “working hours” shall be eight hours a day, eight hours a week, thirty hours a week basic hours, and may work under the labor-management agreement in consideration of the characteristics of transportation business; “working hours and work hours shall be subject to separate wage agreement; “time hours” shall refer to the starting time (from the starting time of the company) to the closing time (from the starting time of the company) to the closing time (from the starting time of the business; “long time of the company” shall be subject to separate wage agreement in 2007; and “long work hours shall be subject to separate wage agreement in 43,714 for the total working hours and seven hours a day, and KRW 1,847 for the total working hours as night work allowances; and KRW 32,425 for the total working hours per day to be paid in the same way as those of the Labor Standards Act in 2008.

Therefore, allowances paid in the form of a monthly salary or daily wage among the various allowances prescribed at the time of a collective agreement and wage agreement are wages for agreed work hours that include overtime work and night work. As such, the hourly ordinary wage for continuous work allowances paid in a monthly wage is calculated by dividing the continuous work allowances by the total number of working hours calculated by aggregating the average standard working hours per month, the average working hours per month, and the monthly overtime and night work hours that take into account the respective premium rates, and the average working hours per month, and the hourly ordinary wage for daily work allowances, CCTV allowances, daily expenses, etc. paid in a daily wage shall be calculated by dividing it by the number of working hours calculated by aggregating the total working hours per day and the total working hours per night work hours that take into account each additional rate per day.

Nevertheless, the court below calculated the number of working hours without considering extended working hours and night work hours, and calculated the hourly ordinary wage based thereon. This is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of ordinary wages.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and 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.

Chief Justice Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jong-il