2016Da3850 Wages

2016Da3867 (Consolidated Wages)

It is as shown in the attached list of plaintiffs.

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 5 others

T Co.

Law Firm Shin-ro, Attorney Lee Han-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant

Daejeon High Court Decision 2014Na4819, 2014Na4826 (Joint) decided December 17, 2015

Judgment

April 9, 2020

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court determined that the Defendant’s bonus paid only to employees employed as of every month’s payment date under the wage agreement did not constitute ordinary wages. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ordinary wages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The second ground for appeal

The court below determined that the food substitute of this case does not constitute ordinary wages, not directly paid to workers or returned the right to food, but did not refund the right to food that had not been used, but it was merely approved by the employees when they actually provided meals at the designated news restaurant.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on wages or ordinary wages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed: (a) the Defendant and the instant union agreed to have all drivers subscribe to an insurance policy instead of installing CCTV in the Defendant’s bus in 199; and (b) to pay KRW 21,310 per month the insurance premium; (c) according to such agreement, the provisions on the driver’s insurance premium were also established under each of the instant wage agreements; and (d) the Defendant also paid the monthly driver’s insurance premium (insurance premium) or KRW 21,310 (insurance premium) or KRW 25,000 directly to the Plaintiffs, regardless of whether they were in office at the time of payment.

Examining these facts in light of the relevant legal principles, the driver’s insurance money paid by the Defendant is a fixed wage with a fixed amount determined by the employee’s payment of a certain amount of money when the employee provided contractual work on a voluntary date.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the driver’s insurance money did not constitute ordinary wages solely for the reasons indicated in its holding. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ordinary wages, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the

4. Ground of appeal No. 4

A. Pursuant to Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”), holiday work paid in addition to 50/100 of ordinary wages as holiday work allowances shall include not only weekly work prescribed in Article 55 of the same Act but also weekly work determined as holiday work under a collective agreement or rules of employment, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da14089, May 14, 1991). Whether a holiday is determined should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the language and text of the provisions related to holiday work in a collective agreement or rules of employment and the background leading up to such provisions, the system and practices of regulating working hours in the same industry as the relevant workplace, the name and amount of wages actually paid, and the method of calculating the amount paid (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da97016, Aug. 14, 2019).

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) The wage agreement concluded in 208, 2009, and 2010 by the X trade union and the V business union representing the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant wage agreements”) stipulates that holiday allowances shall be paid in accordance with the wage schedule in cases where the number of monthly working days exceeds 22 days.

2) According to each wage calculation table prepared in accordance with each of the wage agreements of this case (hereinafter "each of the wage calculation table of this case"), where the number of working days per month exceeds 23 to 26 days (21 to 24 days for February), an extended allowance of 9 hours calculated by adding 50% to the rate of 50% per day shall be paid for every day, while where the number of working days per month exceeds 26 days (24 days for February), an extended allowance of 8 hours per month shall be paid respectively.

3) The plaintiffs and the defendant set the day a week as the weekly holiday, and the defendant separately paid the plaintiffs the "day off which is equivalent to 50% of the basic salary of 8 hours per day only for the day exceeding 26 days (24 days in February) of the working days during the weekly overtime work as set out in each of the wage calculation schedules of this case, separately from weekly holiday allowances."

C. On the premise of the above facts, the lower court determined that the Defendant is liable to pay the difference in property-fixed holiday allowances only for working days exceeding 26 days (26 days in February) of the monthly working days on the grounds that it is difficult to deem the contents of each of the instant wage agreements, etc. to be paid holiday allowances from the 27th day (25 days in February) of the monthly working days to violate the Labor Standards Act, and that the Plaintiffs’ claim for holiday work allowances in excess thereof cannot be accepted.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s workplace set the term “days” only for the day exceeding 26 days of monthly work (24 days in February) among the hours of overtime work. Therefore, the lower court’s conclusion is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on holiday work allowances

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of 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.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Noh Jeong-chul

Chief Justice Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Kim In-bok

A person shall be appointed.