(a) Manufacturing sun-dried salt and so-called “fisheries industry” under Article 49 subparag. 2 of the Labor Standards Act;

(b) Pre-announcement of workers employed as a temporary salt in a place of sun-dried salt and of dismissal under Article 27-2 of the Labor Standards Act.

(a) As regards a person employed with knowledge that he will work for a certain period of time, such as a supervisor, etc. of a sun-dried salt manufacturing, prior notice of dismissal as provided in this Act is not necessary.

B. It is reasonable to interpret that sun-dried salt manufacturing business falls under the fishery business of subparagraph 2 of this Article.

Articles 49(2) and 27-29 of the Labor Standards Act

king-type et al. and 31 others

Korea Salt Business Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1454 delivered on April 21, 1965, Decision 64Na1454 delivered on the support of Incheon High Court.

Each of the appeals filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed.

The litigation costs arising from the above plaintiffs' appeals shall be borne by the same plaintiffs.

The defendant's appeal shall reverse the part against the defendant in the original judgment, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' representative are examined.

However, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below that the theory of the lawsuit is insufficient, and in light of the circumstances that the sun-dried manufacturing work in Korea is decided after a sun-dried production work, and it is not possible to continue work regularly on a daily basis by setting a certain time every day, it is reasonable to interpret that the sun-dried salt manufacturing business falls under the fishery business under Article 49 subparagraph 2 of the Labor Standards Act in light of the circumstances, and it is reasonable to interpret that the temporary salt manufacturing business of a temporary salt supervisor is paid a holiday allowance allowance, overtime work, night work allowance, etc. under the past resale period or current management of the defendant company in the past and the current management of the government office, even if considering detailed records, it is not possible to find out that there is evidence even if it is proved, and therefore,

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's agent is examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff et al. was employed as a temporary human resource for the manufacture of sun-dried, with knowledge of the fact that the work process of the production of sun-dried salt was limited from April of each year to October of each year, and that temporary salt is employed as a temporary worker in April of each year, and that it is naturally dismissed at the beginning of every year. As to the defendant's defense that the plaintiff et al. does not need separate advance notice of dismissal as provided for in the Labor Standards Act, the plaintiff et al. is employed only for that period with knowledge of the fact that it is limited to the period of employment of the plaintiff et al. at each time when the plaintiff et al. were employed, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff et al. waivers of the right to advance dismissal as provided for in Article 27-2 of the Act and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff et al. did not have the right to receive advance dismissal as provided for in the above Article 27-2 of the Act.

However, according to the whole purport of the party's argument that the temporary salt supervisor was employed from the beginning as a temporary salt, and the testimony of the witness Kim Byung-chul, this case's labor contract with the plaintiffs had been implicitly agreed from April to October of the year in which the period of work of the present salt was employed, since the parties knew from the beginning that the period of work of the present salt was known to the fact that it was publicly known from April to October of each year, and even though Article 27-2 of the Labor Standards Act does not apply in the case of a labor contract with a certain period of time, it does not fall under Article 29 of the Labor Standards Act, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the purport of the party's argument or the testimony of the witness Kim Byung-hee at all.

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the defendant's appeal is justified.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges for more than one reason.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu