Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Sub-National Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Maok, Attorneys Go Sung-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

September 7, 2011

Jeju District Court Decision 2010Gadan19722 Decided May 20, 201

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff (Appointed) 3,31,00 won with 5% interest per annum from January 29, 201 to May 20, 2011; and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 3,15,500 won to the Selection 2; 3,15,500 won to the Selection 3,938,800 won; 3,067,100 won to the Selection 5; 3,096,00 won to the Selection 6; 3,245,800 won to the Selection 7; 3,500 won to the Selection 3,50,500 won to the Selection; 3,500 won to the Selection 3,150,501,301,301,301,21 to the Selection 3,501,301,105 won to the Selection 201,301,305 won to the Selection 2.

B. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 10% of the total litigation costs is borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), and the remainder 90% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant (Appointed) 5,101,970 won, 4,487,50 won, 3,155,500 won, 3,800 won, 3,938,800 won, 3,067,100 won, 3,096,000 won, 3,245,800 won, 3,15,500 won, 8, 3,100 won, 3,15,500 won, 3,100 won, 10 won, 3,151,90 won, 3,000 won, 10 won, 3,252,000 won, 111, 3,25,800 won, 3,805, 203, 305, 205, 3,000 won, and 3,000 won, 3,000 won per annum, and 205% per annum.

Purport of appeal

[Plaintiff]

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") shall be revoked, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,675,070 won and interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 29, 2011 to the date of full payment.

[Defendant]

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning for this case is that the plaintiff and the defendant added the judgment as stated in Paragraph 2 below with regard to the matters alleged in the judgment of the court of first instance, and "3,426,900 won to the plaintiff (appointed party)" in Item 12 of Part 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "3,331,00 won to the plaintiff (appointed party)", "the date of pronouncement of this judgment" in Part 14 of the same judgment shall be "the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance", "the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance" in Part 22 of the attached Form 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance" and "the portion of the portion of the portion not used in the year 2008 (the portion paid in 2009) which was not used in the year 209 (the portion paid in 2010)" shall be as stated in the attached Table 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it shall be cited as it as it.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The second instance court's decision that did not recognize the Plaintiff's salary increase for the plaintiff as the full-time officer of a superior organization is unfair, even though the branch falls under the subordinate organization of the Jeju Regional Tourism Industry Trade Union and is not an independent trade union.

(ii) the board;

In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s collective agreement provides that the full-time officer of the Plaintiff and the Nonparty’s union No. 1 and No. 4 (including number 1); (b) the Defendant’s collective agreement is the sole labor organization negotiating the Defendant’s plant union (Article 1 of the Organization Convention); (c) the Plaintiff’s full-time officer’s full-time officer and the Nonparty’s union’s full-time officer’s full-time officer’s full-time officer’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s union’s full-time officer’s labor union.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) The defendant's assertion

Since the plaintiff and the designated parties did not work at all in 2009, the defendant does not have an obligation to grant annual paid leave to the plaintiff and the designated parties, and if the total number of annual paid leave falls under the period of unfair dismissal, the annual paid leave shall not be deemed to have occurred, unlike the case where part of the total number of days falls under the period of unfair dismissal.

(ii) the board;

In light of the fact that annual paid leave is a system that ensures workers to pay paid leave for a certain number of days each year besides holidays, it cannot be considered disadvantageous to workers in calculating the attendance rate for the period for which workers have not worked due to the employer's causes attributable to the employer. Therefore, the period for which workers have not worked due to the employer's unfair dismissal shall be considered to be all included in the total working days and the attendance date (see, e.g., Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2006Guhap45852, Jul. 26, 2007). The above judgment becomes final and conclusive as dismissal and dismissal of appeal).

For this reason, the defendant asserts that even if the attendance rate is calculated at the rate of the total number of working days (the calculation method of annual paid leave claimed by the defendant) for the remaining working days excluding the unfair dismissal period where the total number of working days is part of the annual total number of working days, the right to annual paid leave is not applicable to this case. However, according to the above decision, it clearly states that the unfair dismissal period should be included in the total number of working days and the number of working days when calculating the attendance rate, which is the premise of the annual paid leave, should be included in the total number of working days (in the above case, the attendance rate was calculated by including the total number of working days and the number of working days as claimed by the defendant, and the attendance rate was not calculated through the calculation method as argued by the defendant). Rather, there is no reasonable ground to interpret that the annual paid leave occurs differently depending on the circumstance that the unfair dismissal period corresponds to all the total number of working days, or whether it falls under any part of the above, and rather, the defendant's assertion that the unfair dismissal period is more unfavorable to the employee.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff (Appointed)'s claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the defendant's appeal and changing the judgment of the court of first instance.

[List of Appointed and Attachment omitted]

Judges injured Persons (Presiding Judge) and Jin-Jin for Kim Ho-ho