(영문) 대법원 2018.8.30.선고 2014다223278 판결

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of safety on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s evidence alone, on the grounds that the labor union’s conclusion of each wage agreement with the Defendant, agreed to bring an action in relation to ordinary wages, but that it is related to the wages, etc. already occurred before each agreement was concluded, and that it is subject to individual consent or authorization

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the non-prosecution agreement, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was a lack of fixedness in the weather allowances, fixed allowances, and physical training expenses, on the grounds that there was an implied agreement between the street cleaners and the Defendant that did not pay the said weather allowances, etc. to the retired workers before the payment date, or that such practices were insufficient to be deemed to have been established, and determined that the said weather allowances, etc. were included in ordinary wages.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the scope of ordinary wages.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that Article 9(1) of the instant Wage Convention should be added to the monthly ordinary wage calculation standard hours on the grounds that it is difficult to interpret it as an agreement, and that even if so interpreted, the Plaintiffs’ excess work hours per se are not confirmed, it would be difficult to interpret it as an agreement, and that it should be added to the monthly ordinary wage calculation standard hours (=2 hoursx365x1/12).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding standard hours for calculating ordinary wages, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

A. Part of overtime work premium pay for holiday work

In full view of Articles 50(1) and (2), 53(1), 55, and 56 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter referred to as the “former Labor Standards Act”); Articles 50(1) and (2), 53(1), 55, and 56 of the former Labor Standards Act; Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act; legislative intent and purpose revealed through the history and purpose of the enactment and amendment of the former Labor Standards Act; awareness of the parties to labor relations; existing labor practices; provisions of the Addenda to the amended Labor Standards Act, etc., premium pay for holiday work and overtime work shall not be paid in duplicate unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da12391, Jun. 21, 2018).

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that premium pay should be made in duplicate on holiday work and overtime work. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the payment of premium pay for holiday work and overtime work under the former Labor Standards Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Part of night work allowances

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiffs’ claim for payment of night work allowance is unreasonable on the ground that Article 9(1) of the wage agreement of this case was null and void pursuant to Article 15(1) of the former Labor Standards Act, on the ground that it did not meet the criteria prescribed in Article 56 of the same Act.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on whether the Labor Standards Act was violated.

5. Regarding ground of appeal No. 6

The lower court: (a) deemed that the Defendant and the trade union agreed to consider eight hours as holiday work hours regardless of actual work hours, or agreed to pay eight hours as holiday work allowances; and (b) contrary thereto, the Defendant paid holiday work allowances to the Plaintiffs by mistake in calculation, etc.; (c) rejected the Defendant’s mutual aid or set-off defense, which stated

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the agreement on holiday work allowances or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

6. Conclusion

Without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition.