logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.02 2020노2279
근로기준법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) workers D (hereinafter referred to as "D")'s remaining hours and the time when the worker D (hereinafter referred to as "D") completed work, if the defendant determined the actual working hours, there is no unpaid wages (day leave allowances) for D, and the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

(a) Working hours under the Labor Standards Act means the hours during which a worker provides labor under the direction and supervision of an employer;

A worker’s waiting time, rest time, and on the water that he/she was not engaged in work during working hours is not guaranteed to the worker free use as a part of working hours, but includes working hours when he/she is actually under the employer’s direction and supervision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Do12876, Dec. 13, 2017; 2006Da41990, Nov. 23, 2006). The break time or waiting time prescribed in a labor contract belongs to “work hours” or falls under “work hours” does not necessarily be uniformly determined depending on the specific type of business or type of business.

This ought to be specifically determined on an individual case basis in full view of various circumstances, such as the content of a labor contract, the rules of employment and collective agreement applicable to the relevant workplace, the details of the work provided by an employee, the specific work method of the relevant workplace, whether the employee interferes with or supervises the employer, whether the employee has a place of rest freely available, whether the employee has interfered with or has any other circumstances to recognize the employer’s direction and supervision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da28926, Jun. 28, 2018; 2013Da60807, Jul. 12, 2018; 2014Da74254, Dec. 5, 2017).

arrow