2012Da116000 Wages, etc.

1. A;

2. C

3. Persons taking over the lawsuits of the networkD;

(a) AG;

(b) AH;

7. AI.

4. E.

5. F;

6. G.

7. H;

8. I

9. J;

10. The lawsuits of the deceased K;

(a) AJ;

4. AK.

(c) AL;

(d) AM;

(e)N;

(f) AO;

11. L.

12. M;

13.N

14.O;

15. P;

16. Qua

17.R

18. S;

19. Telecommunication

20. U;

21. V

22.W;

23. X

24. Y

25. Z;

26. AA

27. AB

28. AC

29. AD;

30. AE;

31.AF

Ansan-si

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na71280 Decided November 9, 2012

July 24, 2018

The part of the judgment below on the claim for overtime pay for holiday work is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

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

1. In full view of the contents, structure, and purport of Articles 50(1), 42(1), 55, and 56 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 1513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”); the legislative intent and purpose that can be known through the enactment and amendment of the provisions of the Act; awareness of the parties in labor relations; and the existing labor practices, it is reasonable to view that holiday work hours do not include “40 hours per week standard work hours under Article 50(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and “12 hours overtime work hours per week” under Article 53(1) of the former Labor Standards Act. Therefore, with respect to holiday work performed in excess of the standard work hours per week, additional wages pursuant to overtime work cannot be paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 121Da1319, Jun. 21, 2018).

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

A. The plaintiffs are those who retired while working as street cleaners under employment of the defendant or their inheritors.

B. The Defendant implemented a weekly 40-hour work system in accordance with the collective agreement concluded with the labor union to which the Plaintiffs or their decedents (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) belong and the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs (former Ministry of Public Administration and Security) as reference materials for compilation of the personnel expenses for street cleaners in 2006 and set Saturdays and Sundays as paid holidays. The Plaintiff worked on Saturdays and Sundays in excess of 40 hours a week from April 2006 to retirement.

C. The Defendant did not calculate overtime work allowance regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s holiday work exceeds 40 hours a week and paid holiday work allowances only.

3. Examining the above factual basis in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant is not obliged to pay holiday work more than 40 hours a week’s standard working hours in duplicate, in addition to the premium pay for holiday work, the premium pay for overtime work.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the grounds stated in its reasoning that, in cases where part of the Plaintiff’s weekly holiday working hours exceeds 40 hours a week, the Defendant should make duplicate payment of premium pay for overtime work in addition to the premium pay for holiday work. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the meaning of “1 week” under Articles 50 and 53 of the former Labor Standards Act, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the payment of premium pay for holiday work and overtime work under Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment below on the claim for overtime pay for holiday work is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Kim Jae-han

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Jong-young