The case holding that the court below which ordered the payment of the difference between the employer and the worker with allowances under the provisions of the Labor Standards Act for overtime work, etc. in case where a wage payment contract under the comprehensive wage system with the purport that a certain amount is to be paid as allowances for overtime work, etc., was erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the comprehensive wage system.

The case holding that the court below's order to pay the difference between the employer and the worker with allowances under the provisions of the Labor Standards Act for overtime work allowances or overtime work allowances, night work allowances, holiday allowances, etc. in lieu of the total wage paid by the worker as an overtime work allowance, night work allowances, and holiday work allowances under the provisions of the Labor Standards Act is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the comprehensive wage system, since it is deemed that all overtime work allowances, night work allowances, and holiday work allowances under the provisions of the Labor Standards Act are included, in case where a wage payment contract has been concluded between the employer and the worker to pay a certain amount per month for overtime work hours, etc.

Articles 24 and 55 of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

The council of occupants' representatives of nuclear apartment

Incheon District Court Decision 2001Na2006 delivered on February 7, 2002

The part of the judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff is reversed, and the plaintiff's appeal against this part is dismissed. The total cost of the lawsuit after the first instance is borne by the plaintiff

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the defendant, the representative council of apartment occupants, and worked as an apartment guard, and the plaintiff 2 takes night expenses under Article 21 or 24 hours, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff et al. agreed to pay 110,200 won per month, regardless of actual working hours, as overtime allowance, regardless of the fact that the plaintiff was paid for overtime work allowance, regardless of actual working hours. Based on such agreement, the court below determined that the plaintiff et al. was paid a certain amount of wages in excess of the standard working hours under the Labor Standards Act, since it is naturally anticipated that overtime work hours and holiday work hours exceed the standard under the Labor Standards Act due to the unique nature of surveillance, such as physical or mental tensions, and thus, the plaintiff et al. was paid for overtime work hours in excess of the standard working hours under the comprehensive wage payment system between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Furthermore, even if a wage payment contract was concluded under the inclusive wage system as above, in the case where the basic salary is determined as in this case as to the remaining statutory allowances except this, it is not permitted to receive the amount of the statutory allowances which can be paid fairly in accordance with the standard of the Labor Standards Act. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the difference between the statutory allowances under the Labor Standards Act and the statutory allowances paid under the wage payment contract in this case. The defendant recognizes specific overtime hours, calculates the amount of overtime hours, etc., calculates the difference between the allowances actually paid and the hours of overtime, night, holiday work, and calculates the difference between the allowances actually paid and the allowances actually paid, and orders the defendant to pay 2,978,393 won and damages for delay after deducting the amount of the unpaid overtime allowances received by the plaintiff.

In light of the records, the facts acknowledged by the court below and the judgment that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a wage payment contract under the comprehensive wage system with the purport that a certain amount shall be paid as an allowance every month for labor exceeding the standard working hours.

However, if a wage payment contract under the comprehensive wage system was concluded, overtime work allowances or overtime work allowances, night work allowances, holiday allowances, etc. in lieu of the Plaintiff’s comprehensive wage, include both overtime work allowances, night work allowances, and holiday work allowances under the Labor Standards Act. Thus, as stated in its holding, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the comprehensive wage system, which states that the lower court recognized the Plaintiff’s specific overtime work hours, etc. and ordered the payment of the difference between allowances and allowances under the Labor Standards Act on overtime work, etc. recognized by the lower court (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da4056, Apr. 25, 1997). Thus, the Defendant’s ground of appeal pointing this out is justifiable.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff is reversed, and this part is sufficient for this court to judge, which is the court of final appeal, and therefore, it is as follows in accordance with Article 407

According to the above, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, so the plaintiff's appeal concerning this part (the part in favor of the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance) is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit after the judgment of the court of first instance shall be borne by the plaintiff and it is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)