[1] In a case where an allowance received in return for overtime work is incorporated into a basic salary in the purport of a basic salary increase, whether to claim overtime work allowances (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of the principle of trust and good faith and the requirements to deny the exercise of rights on grounds of violation

[3] The case holding that the worker's claim for overtime work allowances does not go against the good faith principle against the worker's claim for overtime work allowances against the change of the three-dimensional work system from the three-dimensional work system to the three-dimensional work system

[1] Where an enterprise paid an allowance, which is a price for collective and extra-hour work under the collective and extra-hour work system on the day preceding January 1, 1991, to a worker, until June 30, 1991, the enterprise and the trade union established from July 1 of the same year, to a worker by December 31, 190, while the portion paid from January 1, 1991 to June 30 of the same year was to be treated retroactively as being included in the basic salary from January 1, 1991, and was to be treated retroactively as being the basic salary increased. A worker may claim an extra-hour work allowance since January 1, 1991.

[2] The principle of trust and good faith under the Civil Act refers to an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship shall not exercise his/her right or perform his/her duty in a manner that violates the principle of trust and good faith, taking into account the other party’s interests, and thus, in order to deny the exercise of such right on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, it should have been provided to the other party, or objectively, when the other party has good faith, and when the other party’s exercise of right against the other party’s trust is in a state that is not

[3] The case holding that, under Article 3-2 of the Labor Standards Act, where a worker has maintained three-dimensionals by opposing three-dimensionals due to difficulties such as withdrawal from office and withdrawal from office hours due to three-dimensionals work, it cannot be deemed that the company has granted a new intent not to claim overtime work allowances to the company, or that such belief has reached the legitimate state of the company, and even if the domestic company's maintaining the three-dimensionals work status, it takes more expenses than changing the three-dimensionals work status, it cannot be deemed that the provision of Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act or Article 43-2 of the Labor Standards Act does not violate the principle of good faith for the reason that it does not violate the principle of good faith for non-regular workers to claim overtime work allowances.

[1] Articles 42(1) and 46 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 2 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 2 of the Civil Act, Articles 42(1) and 46 of the Labor Standards Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da3802 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 467) Supreme Court Decision 94Da42693 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 353), Supreme Court Decision 95Da12217 delivered on May 10, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 1798)

Successor and 828 others (Law Firm citizen's General Law Office, Attorneys Yoon Jong-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Minting and Security Printing (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na31930 delivered on June 1, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

A. As to the first ground for appeal

According to the records, the court below determined that the defendant's payment of early payment, which is a collective and comprehensive payment for overtime work under the plaintiffs' three-half-time work or three-day overtime work in accordance with the former remuneration regulations, was made until June 30, 191. The defendant and the labor union, which entered into force from July 1 of the same year, paid to workers up to December 31, 1990, and that the payment of early payment from January 1, 1991 to June 30 of the same year was made retroactively as the basic salary was included in the basic salary from January 1, 1991 to June 30 of the same year. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiffs may claim overtime work allowances after January 1, 1991 is justified, and there is no ground to believe that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as in the judgment below.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The principle of trust and good faith under the Civil Act refers to an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship shall not exercise a right or perform a duty in a way that is contrary to equity or trust, taking into account the other party’s interest. In order to deny the exercise of such right on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, it should have been provided to the other party, or the other party has been objectively regarded as being in a legitimate state, and the exercise of the right against the other party’s trust should not be justified in light of the concept of justice (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da3802 delivered on December 10, 1991).

According to the records, the defendant initially conducted the shift work of 3 trillion services for 8 hours a day and changed to 3 trillion services for 3 hours from around 1983 to 3 trillion service for reasonable human resources management and work efficiency. Accordingly, the plaintiffs, excluding 3 trillion workers, have part of the plaintiffs work for 3 trillion preceding day. After the revision of the Labor Standards Act on November 28, 1987, the changed work hours system was abolished, the defendant tried to change the work period of 3 trillion service to 3 trillion three workers. However, the defendant tried to implement the work period of 10¡¯s 3 trillion work hours from 30¡¯s work period to 30¡¯s work period: 30¡¯s work period from 30¡¯s work period to 10¡¯s work period from 30¡¯s work period to 10¡¯s work period from 30¡¯s work period to 30¡¯ work hours from 30¡¯ work period to 10¡¯ work period from 30¡¯ work period to 30¡¯ work period.

If the facts are same, among the plaintiffs, the workers of the third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third, because they refused to claim overtime pay. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs' claim for overtime pay does not violate the principle of trust and good faith, even if the defendant's maintenance of the third third third third third third third third third third third third third and third class work is more cost than changing the work form. Thus, in light of the provisions of Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act or the circumstances where the third and second class work continued, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs' claim for overtime pay does not violate the concept of justice.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of good faith, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)