logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.02.14 2016가단39346
임금
Text

1. The defendant,

A. The phrase “request amount” stated in the attached list in the Plaintiff B, X, Z, and AA, as well as the money, among them.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a local public enterprise that manages parks and parking facilities located in Bupyeong-gu, and the plaintiffs are regular workers, technical workers, and contract workers who work for the defendant Corporation.

B. From August 1, 2013, the Defendant calculated hourly ordinary wages including only basic pay, class allowance, job performance allowance, job performance allowance, management allowance, technical allowance, work allowance, and dangerous duty allowance in the case of regular workers, including only basic pay, technical allowance, risk allowance, work allowance, duty allowance, and special duty allowance, in the case of contractual workers, including only the long-term continuous service allowance, overtime allowance, class allowance, training allowance, transportation subsidy, meal allowance, etc. Based on this, the Defendant paid overtime, night, holiday allowance, annual allowance, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In addition to the allowances that the Defendant calculated as ordinary wages, the summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion also includes ① long-term continuous service allowances, meal service allowances, common points out of welfare points, and continuous service points in case of regular workers and contractual workers. ② Long-term continuous service allowances, terminal allowances, traffic subsidies, meal subsidies, common points out of welfare points, and continuous service points (hereinafter “each of the instant allowances”) in addition to the allowances that the Defendant calculated as ordinary wages, should be included in the scope of ordinary wages.

Therefore, the defendant should have paid to the plaintiffs an extended, night, holiday, and annual allowance in accordance with ordinary wages that include each of the instant allowances. However, since the defendant paid extended, night, holiday, and annual allowance based on ordinary wages that were calculated without including each of the instant allowances, the defendant paid to the plaintiffs an extended, night, holiday, and annual allowance, it shall be again calculated by including each of the instant allowances.

arrow