Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

May 15, 2009

Gwangju District Court Decision 2008Gapo26058 Decided February 17, 2009

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to each of the plaintiffs (appointed parties; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") and the appointed parties 1,582,240 won and the interest rate of 20% per annum from April 22, 2008 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged by the parties to a dispute or by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 8-1, 2, and 10 and all pleadings:

A. The Defendant is operating ○○ Farmwon, a flower farm, at the ○○-ri, ○○○, in the area of Jeonnam-gun, Youngnam-gun (number omitted).

B. The Plaintiff, the Appointors Nonparty 1, and 2 respectively entered into a labor contract with the Defendant from November 2, 2007 to April 7, 2008, and the Appointors Nonparty 3 entered into a labor contract with the Defendant from November 16, 2007 to April 6, 2008, and provided labor at the above ○○○ Agricultural Board.

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff and the designated parties did not receive the total of KRW 1,582,240 for overtime work allowances and the total of KRW 1,289,920 for holiday work allowances and KRW 292,320 for each holiday work allowance during the above period, the defendant is liable to pay each of the above amounts and delay damages to the plaintiff and the designated parties.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the above ○○ farmer who provided labor by the plaintiff and the designated parties constitutes a plant cultivation business as stipulated in Article 63 subparagraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act, and is not subject to the Labor Standards Act concerning extension and holiday work allowances, so the plaintiff and the selected parties are not obliged to pay overtime and holiday work allowances.

B. Determination

According to Article 63 subparag. 1 of the Labor Standards Act, the provision on working hours, rest hours, and holidays prescribed by the Labor Standards Act shall not apply to workers engaged in the cultivation, reclamation, planting, cultivation, and gathering of plants, and other agricultural and forest businesses, as well as the provision on working hours, rest, and holidays prescribed by the Labor Standards Act. Since the regulation on working hours, etc. under the Labor Standards Act mainly takes into account the production workers of the manufacturing industry, the above provision is grounded on the unique nature that applying the legal regulations on working hours, rest, and holidays under the Labor Standards Act is not necessarily appropriate depending on the type of business or labor.

In this case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to health class Nos. 8-1, 2, and 10 of the evidence No. 8-1, 00, 000, 000, which are operated by the defendant's workplace, 000 won, as the defendant's establishment, constitutes the business of cultivating plants under Article 63-1 of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the provisions on working hours, rests, and holidays under the Labor Standards Act are not applicable. Thus, the defendant is not obligated to pay overtime and holiday work allowances to the plaintiff and the selected party who provided labor at the above 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

On the other hand, the plaintiff stated in the wage column of the standard labor contract prepared by the defendant in the course of concluding the labor contract that "the payment of overtime, night, and holiday work allowances" is effective, and the defendant is obligated to pay overtime and holiday work allowances in accordance with the terms of the agreement. However, it is true that the above phrase is written in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, but the above phrase is printed in the same letter as the plaintiff's assertion, and the above provision is written in the bottom of the standard labor contract. Considering the above facts, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the defendant, the plaintiff, and the designated parties to exclude the application of the Labor Standards Act and pay overtime and holiday work allowances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Omission of List of Appointed]

Judges Kang Shin (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)