The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. With respect to the Defendant’s payment of overtime allowance, the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact, misunderstanding legal principles) (1) as to the Defendant’s payment of overtime allowance (hereinafter “instant labor contract”) was defective labor contract that was entered into between the Defendant and the instant workers, and the Defendant was also aware of the problems of the instant labor contract in advance and demanded F to increase personnel expenses; (b) the unpaid overtime allowance cannot cover part of the excess paid wages in relation to the Defendant’s assertion that the excess paid should be appropriated first from the wages paid in advance; and (2) as to the Defendant’s payment of overtime allowance, the Defendant’s payment of overtime allowance is only the subject of a claim for return of unjust enrichment; and (3) as to the Defendant’s payment of holiday work allowance, the substitution of holiday work and compensation leave must be granted together with holiday work, or there is a prior agreement between the parties. However, it is difficult to view that the paid holiday work at the expiration of four months or more as compensation leave for the worker’s day; and there is no agreement between the labor and management to provide compensation leave.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination also requires an employer to set-off or set-off on the ground that the employer has part of excess payment of statutory allowances for the same period when the employee claims unpaid statutory allowances for a certain period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da28737, Oct. 12, 1993; 94Da26721, Dec. 21, 1995) and whether the excess payment of statutory allowances can be appropriated for gold, soil, and Sundays extension hours.