logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.11.23 2016나52159
임금 등
Text

1. The part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is that the part of “the calculation of legitimate wages of 3.3” below the 8th judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The calculation of legitimate wages;

A. In full view of no dispute between the parties to legal allowances, or the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, the hourly ordinary wage of the Plaintiff, etc., which was determined based on the items of the recognized ordinary wage as above during the period of time, is as indicated in the annexed Table 3, and the difference between the amount of the Plaintiff, etc.’s justifiable overtime allowance, annual leave allowance, and weekly leave allowance, and the amount already paid, is as indicated in the annexed Table 1 “the aggregate of the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, etc.” in the annexed Table 1.

(Article 8 of the Defendant’s Wage Regulations provides that a fractional amount of less than ten won shall be rounded off when calculating wages. However, as sought by the Plaintiff, etc., the Defendant asserts that: (a) the amount of overtime allowances paid in January 201 to January 15, 201 is the remuneration for overtime work from December 16, 2011 to December 31, 201; and (b) as such, the ordinary wage for overtime work from December 16, 201 to December 31, 201 and from January 15, 2012 should be calculated respectively.

However, according to the above evidence, this part of the overtime allowance is judged as remuneration for the overtime work in January 2012, and the above argument is rejected.

B. (1) The parties’ assertion that annual leave allowances are included in the total amount of wages, which is the basis for calculating the average wage, (a) the amount of annual leave allowances paid on or after January 2012, the annual leave allowances paid on or after January 2010 of the Plaintiff et al., respectively.

arrow