(a) The case holding that the actual working hours inside the pits fall short of the daily working hours provided for in the collective agreement even if the hours required for the employment council are included, if the time for entrance and exit, rest time (including food time), etc. in the total working hours of the mining department are excluded;

B. Validity of an agreement between labor and management to exclude allowances to be included in ordinary wages from ordinary wages due to their nature (=negative)

(c) The case holding that food expenses provided in kind or paid as purchase rights only on the date of attendance are included in ordinary wages;

(a) The case holding that the actual working hours inside the pits fall short of the daily working hours provided for in the collective agreement, even if the hours required for the employment council are included in the total working hours of the mining department, if the hours for entrance, exit, rest (including the hours for meals), etc. are excluded from the total working hours

B. Ordinary wages are ordinary wages to be paid regularly and uniformly for a fixed amount or quality of work, and they are ordinary wages to be paid periodically and uniformly without being referring to actual working days or actual wages, and they guarantee the minimum amount of average wages that can be increased or decreased according to actual working hours or performance, and they are the basis for calculating premium for overtime hours, night and holiday work as prescribed in Article 46 of the same Act, and advance notice of dismissal as prescribed in Article 27-2 of the same Act. Since there is no separate minimum standard other than premium rates or payment days, each of the above provisions recognizes the validity of an agreement to exclude various allowances to be included in ordinary wages from ordinary wages due to the nature of the agreement between the labor and management, if each of the above provisions recognizes the validity of the agreement to exclude them from ordinary wages, it shall be dismissed, given the nature of the agreement between the labor and management to exclude them from ordinary wages under Article 20(1) of the same Act, it shall be deemed null and void.

(c) The case holding that food expenses provided in kind or paid as purchase rights are included in ordinary wages only on the date of attendance at work.

A. Articles 42 and 46 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 43 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 4220, Jan. 13, 1990). Article 18, Article 19 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 31(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 20 of the same Act

A.B. (C) Supreme Court Decision 93Da3394 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1992, 1269). Supreme Court Decision 91Da11391 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1269), Supreme Court Decision 92Da24592 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong193, 231), Supreme Court Decision 92Da2770 delivered on March 9, 193 (Gong193, 1145), Supreme Court Decision 90Da6948 delivered on November 9, 1990 (Gong191, 37), Supreme Court Decision 90Da14758 delivered on June 28, 1991 (Gong191, 2015).

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Coal Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na17909 delivered on November 25, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

(a) for actual working hours inside the pits:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below started work at Defendant Corporation’s main mining center (the plaintiff worked at Defendant Corporation’s main mining center, but the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that the work site of various mining stations operated by Defendant Corporation is identical, and they are proved, that the number of employees among them are the sample of the most long-term mining center, including entry and exit and break time, up to 0: 16:0 to 24:00; 16:0 to 24:00 to 00; 24:00 to 00 to 08:0 to 16:0 to 24:0 to 1:5:0 to 1:0 work hours at the work site at the end of the work site at the end of the work site at the end of the work site at the end of the work site at the end of the work at the end of the 2:0-hour shift work (the same work site at the end of the work site at the end of the work site at the end of 2:0 to 30:10 minutes of work at the entrance of the work site.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no reason to hold that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

B. With respect to physical training costs:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant Corporation paid a retirement allowance to the retired employee in accordance with the prescribed retirement allowance rules, and found that the retirement allowance rules provide that the "average wage" as the basis for calculating the retirement allowance for the period of service before December 31, 1980 and the "basic wage" as the basis for calculating the period of service after January 1, 1981 shall be excluded from the "average wage" as the basis for calculating the retirement allowance for the period of service before and after January 1, 1981. Meanwhile, according to the evidences, the above retirement allowance rules are recognized as having been agreed upon in the case of the technical worker (labor worker) of the plaintiff, and eventually, there was an agreement between the labor and management to exclude the physical training allowance from the "average wage" or "basic wage" as the basis for calculating the retirement allowance for the period of service before and after the above fact-finding, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of facts, and there is no ground to invoke any error in the law, and there is no ground to invoke this decision in this case.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

Ordinary wages are ordinary wages paid regularly and uniformly for a certain amount of work or quality without being able to be paid for actual work days or actual wages (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu6948, Nov. 9, 1990). This also guarantees the minimum amount of average wages that can be increased or decreased depending on actual work hours or performance (see Article 19(2) of the Labor Standards Act), Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act, and calculation of additional allowances for overtime hours, night and holiday work, and advance notice of dismissal under Article 27-2 of the same Act. Since there are no separate minimum standards other than premium rates or payment days, each provision recognizes the validity of an agreement to exclude various allowances to be included in ordinary wages in light of the nature of labor and management, if the agreement to exclude them from ordinary wages is concluded, additional allowances shall be paid for overtime hours, night and holiday work hours, and the purport of the above provision that the dismissal allowance shall be ordinarily paid to workers for a certain period of time is to be excluded from ordinary wages under Article 20(1) of the same Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant Corporation provided a certain amount of meals to all workers only on the day of attendance at work, and provided workers who do not receive meals with a right to purchase the Gu board equivalent to the above money, and held that the above food board expenses are ordinary wages, since it is reasonable to deem that they are wages regularly and uniformly paid for work in light of the payment terms and the contents of the daily wage, which are determined as the daily wage, and thus, it is reasonable to consider that the above food board expenses are ordinary wages. Furthermore, the defendant's assertion that the above food board expenses should be excluded in calculating ordinary wages, as the defendant agreed to exclude the food board expenses from the wages because the food board expenses are the welfare expenses between the labor and the management of the defendant corporation, even if there is an agreement as alleged above, and as a matter of course, an agreement to exclude part of the amount of ordinary wages from the calculation of wages is in violation of Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, rejected the defendant's assertion.

The above determination by the court below is just in light of the above legal principles as to the concept of ordinary wages and the relationship between ordinary wages and Article 20 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal nature of food-related expenses or the legal principles as to ordinary wages. The above determination is not in violation of Article 150 of the Rules of the Ministry of Labor (the Guidelines for Calculation of Ordinary Wages of January 4, 198) and the Supreme Court precedents. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)