Whether holiday work hours are included in “40 hours of weekly standard work” under Article 50(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and “12 hours of weekly overtime work” under Article 53(1) of the same Act (negative)

[Majority Opinion] (A) Since the law is a universal norm with the same binding force against many and unspecified persons in principle, it shall be interpreted in such a way as to clarify the standard meaning of the law and to ensure objective feasibility, and it shall be ensured that legal stability is not undermined by maintaining consistency as much as possible. Meanwhile, since positive law is established in consideration of universal and typical matters, it is also required to interpret and apply so that it can be the most reasonable solution appropriate for specific matters in various cases that occur in society reality. In short, the goal of statutory interpretation must be to find concrete feasibility within the extent that does not undermine legal stability. Furthermore, in principle, the law ought to be faithfully interpreted within the ordinary meaning of the text used in the law, as far as possible, in light of the legislative intent and purpose, history of the amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, relationship with other statutes, etc., and thus, a systematic and logical interpretation ought to be additionally adopted to meet the request for statutory interpretation.

(B) In full view of the contents, structure, and purport of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”) and the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29010, Jun. 29, 2018; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act”), legislative intent and purpose revealed through the enactment and amendment history of the legal provisions, awareness of the parties in labor relations, and existing labor practices, it is reasonable to deem that holiday hours do not include “40 hours of weekly standard working hours” under Article 50(1) and “12 hours of weekly extension of weekly working hours” under Article 53(1) of the former Labor Standards Act. The following reasons are as follows.

① Article 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act provides that only a person who has shown perfect attendance of contractual work during the period of one week shall be granted paid holidays at least once a week on average. It is natural that the “one week” as referred to in this provision does not include holidays. However, since practical standard working hours are ordinarily determined as contractual work hours, it can be deemed that paid holidays are granted only when one week standard working hours are met. Thus, it is not readily concluded that “one week” as referred to in Article 50(1) of the former Labor Standards Act, which prescribes weekly standard working hours, means seven days including holidays.

Rather, Articles 55 and 56 of the former Labor Standards Act guarantee paid holidays, and stipulate premium pay according to the same premium rate as overtime and night work for holiday work. Working on holiday work without the duty to provide labor is similar to overtime work, which regulates holiday work separately from overtime work. In light of the content and regulatory method of the relevant provisions, it is understood that the weekly standard working hours and weekly overtime working hours under Articles 50(1) and 53(1) of the former Labor Standards Act are intended to regulate working hours for contractual work days, not holidays.

② Whether to include holidays in “one week” under the former Act is a matter that falls within the territory of legislative policies. Therefore, in interpreting the Act, the legislative intent ought to be respected to the maximum extent possible, thereby maintaining the unity and systematic legitimacy of legal order. However, it seems clear that the legislative intent that can be seen through the process of enacting and amending the Labor Standards Act clearly separate holiday work and overtime work from overtime work, and does not include holiday work hours in overtime work hours.

③ The fact that holiday work hours are not included in weekly standard work hours and weekly overtime work hours can be evaluated as having been a kind of social norm between the parties in a labor relationship, and this ought to be considered as important in interpreting the relevant provisions under the former Labor Standards Act. The interpretation otherwise seems to be contrary to the long-standing trust of the parties in a labor relationship and to result in legal confusion.

④ If holiday work is included in overtime work and the maximum weekly working hours are interpreted as 52 hours under the former Act, it would be inconsistent with the Addenda of the amended Labor Standards Act, which was formulated by the National Assembly, a representative body of the people, by coordinating conflicting interests between both labor and management, and by gathering various opinions from all levels of society, thereby impairing legal stability as it is difficult to avoid unreasonable and confusion in the application process.

Ultimately, the hours of holiday work under the former Labor Standards Act should not be included in the weekly standard working hours and weekly overtime working hours. As such, as a natural logical conclusion, the premium pay for holiday work and the premium pay for overtime work cannot be paid in duplicate.

[Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kim Shin, Justice Kim So-young, Justice Jo Hee-de, Justice Park Jung-hwa, and Justice Min You-sook] (A) The regulation of weekly working hours under the former Labor Standards Act applies naturally to holiday work.

When interpreting the law, it should be interpreted faithfully to the ordinary meaning of the language and text used in the law as far as possible. If the text and text of the law are composed of relatively clear concepts, in principle, it is not necessary or limited to use other interpretation methods.

On the other hand, the term "working hours" refers to the actual working hours that workers provide labor under the direction and supervision of the employer.

In full view of the following circumstances based on the foregoing legal doctrine, holiday work hours are included in the maximum weekly working hours of 52 hours, including “40 hours per week standard working hours” under Article 50(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and “12 hours per week overtime working hours” under Article 53(1) of the same Act.

(1) The term "one week" means seven days in the calendar from ordinary monthly days to Sundays or from Sundays to Saturdays.

② Article 50(1) of the former Labor Standards Act, which prescribes weekly standard working hours, did not provide for a separate provision that excludes holidays from the “one week”, and there is no reason to exclude the actual working hours from the actual working hours on the ground that the actual working day is a holiday.

③ Article 53(1) of the former Labor Standards Act does not specifically exclude any day from the scope of hours that may be extended a week. There is no ground to interpret “one week” and “working hours” differently from the aforementioned meaning.

④ Article 55 of the former Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall grant an employee at least one paid holiday per week on average, and Article 56 of the same Act provides that an employee shall pay premium when he/she works on a holiday, and does not have any special restrictions, such as prohibiting holiday work.

(5) The Labor Standards Act strictly regulates overtime work by setting the limit to which the standard working hours may be extended, and criminal punishment is imposed in the event of a violation thereof (Article 110 Subparag. 1). If holiday work performed in excess of the standard working hours per week is not deemed overtime work, it is possible to engage in overtime work in excess of the extended working hours, and it is inconsistent with the purport of the Labor Standards Act setting the upper limit of overtime working hours and allowing the strict observance thereof.

Therefore, if working hours of a non-regular working day are less than 40 hours but the number of working hours exceeds 40 hours a week, the part concerning holiday work performed in excess of 40 hours a week, or the part concerning holiday work performed in excess of 40 hours a day other than a holiday work, and the additional holiday work performed in excess of 40 hours

(B) If holiday work and overtime work overlap, premium pay for holiday work and overtime work respectively.

In light of the language and text structure and structure of Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act, such interpretation is natural. In addition, even in full view of the following circumstances, holiday work performed in excess of weekly standard working hours should be paid as well as premium pay for holiday work performed in excess of weekly standard working hours.

(1) Holidays are different in nature from overtime work, and the purport of compensation and regulation for premium pay under Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act is entirely different.

② Examining the provisions of Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act and Articles 50 and 53, which are related provisions, it also accords with the legal systematic interpretation and definition of the relevant provisions to interpret that the extended working hours eligible for premium pay as prescribed in Article 56 include holiday work hours.

Therefore, if a worker worked on a holiday in excess of 40 hours a week standard working hours under the former Act, it is necessary to interpret that the worker should pay the premium for holiday work as well as the premium for overtime work.

Articles 50(1) and (2), 53(1), 55 (see current Article 55(1)), and 56 of the former Labor Standards Act (Amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018); Articles 2(1)7, 53(3), 70, 109 subparag. 1, and 110 subparag. 1 of the Labor Standards Act; Articles 1(2) and (3), and 2 of the Addenda (Amended by Act No. 15513, Jun. 29, 2018); Article 30 (see current Article 30(1)) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Labor Standards Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 29010, Jun. 29, 2018)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da14406 Decided October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 3105) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81035 Decided April 23, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 724) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da83431 Decided January 17, 2013 (Gong2013Sang, 329)

Plaintiff 1 and 34 others (Law Firm Han-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Sung-nam City (Law Firm Dong, Attorneys Cho Young-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na74153 decided November 18, 2011

Of the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant, the part regarding the claim for overtime pay for holiday work is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Case progress

A. The plaintiffs are those who retired while working as street cleaners under employment of the defendant or their inheritors.

B. The Defendant implemented a 40-hour work system from July 1, 2005 to set Saturdays and Sundays as paid holidays pursuant to the collective agreement concluded with the labor union to which the Plaintiffs or their inheritees belong (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”). The Plaintiff’s side worked for more than 40 hours a week from October 2005 to retirement.

The Defendant did not calculate overtime work allowances regardless of whether the number of hours per week exceeds 40 hours for holiday work on the part of the Plaintiff, and paid only holiday work allowances.

C. The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking payment of unpaid holiday allowance, annual holiday allowance, etc. calculated on the basis of ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act, and expanded the claim of the lower court by asserting that holiday work should be paid in duplicate in addition to holiday work allowance.

D. The lower court accepted this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant appealed against this and filed an appeal.

2. Issues;

The key issue of this case is how to interpret “one week” under the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter referred to as “former Labor Standards Act”); and how to interpret “one week” under the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 201; hereinafter referred to as “former Labor Standards Act”); and when working on holidays more than 40 hours, the weekly standard working hours under the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter referred to as “Labor Standards Act”).

3. Legal provisions and their interpretation

A. Legal provisions

The former Labor Standards Act provisions relating to the issues of the instant case are as follows.

Article 50 (Work Hours)

(1) Work hours shall not exceed 40 hours a week, excluding hours of recess.

(2) Work hours shall not exceed eight hours a day, excluding hours of recess.

Article 53 (Restrictions on Extended Works)

(1) Where there exists an agreement between the parties, work hours under Article 50 may be extended up to 12 hours per week.

Article 55 (Holidays) An employer shall allow workers at least one paid holiday per week on average.

Article 56 (Extended, Night, and Holiday Work) An employer shall, in addition to ordinary wages, pay 50 percent or more thereof for overtime work (work during the hours extended pursuant to Articles 53, 59, and the proviso to Article 69), night work (work between 10:00 p.m. and 6:0 a.m.), or holiday work.

B. As to whether the regulation of work hours per week applies even on holidays

(1) As a matter of principle, since the law is a universal norm with the same binding force against many and unspecified persons, it is necessary to clarify the standard meaning of the law and interpret it in an objective way to ensure its propriety. Meanwhile, since the positive law is stipulated in consideration of a universal and typical matter, it is necessary to interpret and apply so that legal stability can not be undermined by maintaining consistency that all the persons are acceptable. In short, the objective of statutory interpretation is to find concrete feasibility within the extent that does not undermine legal stability. Furthermore, in principle, the legislative intent and purpose, history, harmony with the overall legal order, and relationship with other statutes should be added to the method of systematic and logical interpretation that takes into account as much as possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 81Da3431, Jan. 17, 2013).

(2) In full view of the content, structure, and purport of the provisions of the former Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, the legislative intent and purpose that can be seen through the enactment and amendment history of the legal provisions, awareness of the parties to labor relations, and existing labor practices, etc., it is reasonable to deem that holiday work hours are not included in the “12 hours of weekly overtime work” under Articles 50(1) and 53(1) of the former Labor Standards Act. The detailed reasons are as follows.

(A) Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act provides that only a person who has shown perfect attendance of contractual work during the period of one week shall be granted paid holidays at least once a week on average. It is natural that the “one week” under this provision does not include holidays. However, since practical standard working hours are ordinarily determined as contractual work hours, it can be deemed that paid holidays are granted only when one week standard working hours are met. Thus, it is not readily concluded that “one week” under Article 50(1) of the former Labor Standards Act, which prescribes weekly standard working hours, means seven days including holidays.

Rather, Articles 55 and 56 of the former Labor Standards Act guarantee paid holidays, and stipulate premium pay according to the same premium rate as overtime and night work for holiday work. Working on holiday work without the duty to provide labor is similar to overtime work, which regulates holiday work separately from overtime work. In light of the content and regulatory method of the relevant provisions, it is understood that the weekly standard working hours and weekly overtime working hours under Articles 50(1) and 53(1) of the former Labor Standards Act are intended to regulate working hours for contractual work days, not holidays.

(B) Whether to include holidays in “one week” under the former Labor Standards Act is a matter that falls within the territory of legislative policies. Therefore, in interpreting the Act, the legislative intent ought to be respected to the maximum extent and to maintain the unity and systematic legitimacy of legal order. However, it seems clear that the legislative intent that can be seen through the process of enacting and amending the Labor Standards Act clearly separate holiday work and overtime work from holiday work and overtime work and does not include holiday work hours in overtime work hours.

① According to the Labor Standards Act established in 1953, inasmuch as the maximum weekly standard working hours were 48 hours per week, and the maximum weekly standard working hours were 8 hours every six days every day, if the said hours were to be worked during weekly working hours, the maximum weekly working hours would naturally exceed the maximum weekly working hours as a matter of course. Nevertheless, the Labor Standards Act was enacted to guarantee paid weekly working hours, and does not stipulate that the said hours are subject to premium pay for overtime work, and does not recognize premium pay for holiday work. This also shows that the said Act was performed in a situation where the maximum weekly standard working hours exceed 48 hours, which is 48 hours per week, and that the legislative intent was clearly expressed to the effect that the said hours will not be deemed as overtime work.

② The revised Labor Standards Act also assumes that holiday work hours are not included in overtime work hours under the interpretation of the former Labor Standards Act.

In other words, Article 2(1)7 of the amended Labor Standards Act added the definition “one week” to “seven days including holidays,” and Article 1(2) of the Addenda to the Labor Standards Act set a different time for enforcement of the definition by workplace size. In addition, Article 53(3) of the amended Labor Standards Act, Article 1(3) and Article 2 of the Addenda to the same Act allow temporary extension of work up to eight hours per week for less than thirty workplaces (from July 1, 2021 to December 31, 202).

This revised Labor Standards Act, on the premise that holiday work hours are not included in weekly standard work hours and weekly overtime work hours, is added to the definition of Article 2(1)7 under the former Labor Standards Act, and includes holiday work hours in the future. However, in the event that the revised Act immediately enters into force, the maximum number of weekly overtime work hours is reduced to 52 hours (40 hours per week standard work hours + 12 hours per week overtime work hours), it is understood that the period of implementation for each workplace is set differently and the special extension work is allowed in order to prevent social and economic confusion.

(C) Considering the following circumstances, the fact that holiday work hours are not included in weekly standard work hours and weekly overtime work hours may be evaluated as having been a kind of social norm between the parties in a labor relationship, and this ought to be considered as important in interpreting the relevant provisions under the former Labor Standards Act. It is difficult to accept any other interpretation contrary to the long-standing trust of the parties in a labor relationship and to bring about legal confusion.

① The Ministry of Employment and Labor has consistently interpreted holiday work hours as not included in weekly overtime work hours for a long period of time and applied them to industrial sites. Under the premise that holiday work is not included in overtime work based on the administrative interpretation of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, holiday work has been conducted for a long period of time without any objection, such as exceeding the weekly overtime work limit due to holiday work.

② Since the 1960s when the instant lawsuit was instituted since the introduction of the provision on premium pay for holiday work under the Labor Standards Act, there was no filing of an employee’s explicit lawsuit, etc. on the premise that holiday work is included in overtime work during the period exceeding the half-century period. Moreover, even though the payment of premium pay for overtime work is subject to criminal punishment, it is difficult to find a criminal complaint or a criminal prosecution for failing to pay premium pay for holiday work on the ground that the employer did not pay overtime work.

(D) If holiday work is included in overtime work and the maximum weekly working hours are interpreted as 52 hours under the former Labor Standards Act, the National Assembly, a representative body of the people, coordinating conflicting interests between both labor and management, and gathering various opinions from all levels of society, thereby impairing legal stability as it is difficult to avoid unreasonable and confusion in the application process.

① When interpreting that “one week” under the former Labor Standards Act includes holidays, the legal effect that uniformly applies the maximum working hours per week to 52 hours irrespective of the scale of the place of business would soon appear before the enforcement period of the newly established provision on the definition of “one week” under the amended Labor Standards Act, by means of the supplementary provision of the amended Labor Standards Act, becomes invalid.

② Furthermore, in a consistent interpretation, only one week can work until July 1, 2021, in a place of business with less than 30 persons, until July 1, 2021, it is rather difficult to understand that it is possible to work up to 60 hours a week for a limited period from July 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022.

(3) Ultimately, holiday work hours under the former Labor Standards Act are not included in weekly standard work hours and weekly overtime work hours. As such, as a natural logical conclusion, premium pay for holiday work and premium pay for overtime work cannot be paid in duplicate.

C. Determination on the instant case

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that holiday work performed within eight hours in excess of a weekly standard working hours constituted overtime work, and that overtime work should be paid in duplicate in addition to the premium pay for holiday work. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the meaning of “one week” under Articles 50 and 53 of the former Labor Standards Act, and the legal doctrine on the payment of each premium pay for holiday work and overtime work under Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant on the claim for overtime pay for holiday work is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, except for a dissenting opinion by Justice Kim Shin, Justice Kim So-young, Justice Jo Hee-de, Justice Jo Hee-de, Justice Park Jung-hwa, and Justice Min You-sook, and a concurrence with the Majority by Justice Park Sang-ok,

5. Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kim Shin, Justice Kim So-young, Justice Jo Hee-de, Justice Park Jung-hwa, and Justice Min You-sook

A. The gist of the Majority Opinion is that holiday work hours are not included in “40 hours of weekly standard work” under Article 50(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and “12 hours of weekly overtime work” under Article 53(1) of the same Act, and as a result, holiday work hours are not included in “12 hours of weekly overtime work” under Article 50(1) of the same Act, and as a result, premium pay for holiday work and overtime work cannot be paid in duplicate.

B. First, the regulation of weekly working hours under the former Labor Standards Act is naturally applicable to holiday work.

(1) In interpreting a law, as a matter of principle, the interpretation should be faithfully interpreted with the ordinary meaning of the language and text used in the law as far as possible. If the text and text of the law are composed of relatively clear concepts, in principle, another interpretation method is not necessary or limited (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81035, Apr. 23, 2009, etc.).

Meanwhile, “working hours” refers to the actual working hours under the direction and supervision of the employer, that is, the hours during which the employee provides labor under the labor contract (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da14406, Oct. 9, 192).

(2) In full view of the following circumstances on the premise of the foregoing legal doctrine, holiday work hours are included in the maximum weekly working hours of 52 hours, including “40 hours per week standard working hours” under Article 50(1) of the former Labor Standards Act and “12 hours per week overtime working hours” under Article 53(1) of the same Act.

(A) The term “one week” means seven days in calendars from the ordinary monthly day to Sundays or from Sundays to the Saturday.

(B) Article 50(1) of the former Labor Standards Act, which prescribes weekly standard working hours, did not provide a separate provision that excludes holidays from the “one week”, and there is no reason to exclude the actual working hours from the actual working hours on the ground that the actual working day is a holiday.

(C) Article 53(1) of the former Labor Standards Act provides for the maximum weekly overtime working hours and does not specifically exclude any day from the scope of one week. There is no ground to interpret “one week” and “working hours” differently from the foregoing.

(D) Article 55 of the former Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall grant an employee at least one paid holiday per week average, and Article 56 of the same Act provides that an employee shall pay premium when he/she works on a holiday, and does not have any special restrictions, such as prohibiting holiday work.

(E) The Labor Standards Act strictly regulates overtime work by setting a limit to extend standard working hours, and imposes criminal punishment upon violations thereof (Article 110 Subparag. 1). If a holiday work performed in excess of weekly standard working hours is deemed not to constitute overtime work, it is not consistent with the purport of the Labor Standards Act setting the upper limit of overtime working hours and allowing the same to be strictly observed.

(3) Therefore, even though working hours are less than 40 hours on non-Holidays, if the weekly working hours exceed 40 hours, the portion of holiday work performed in excess of 40 hours, or the additional holiday work performed in excess of 40 hours on non-Holiday working days constitutes overtime work.

(c) Where holiday work and overtime work overlap, additional wages shall be paid for both holiday work and overtime work, respectively;

(1) It is natural to interpret the language form and structure of Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act.

(A) Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act provides that “an employer shall pay overtime work, night work, or holiday work more than 50/100 of ordinary wages in addition to that of ordinary wages.” From this point of view, “at least 50/100 of ordinary wages shall be paid if extended work falls under overtime work”, “at least 50/100 of ordinary wages shall be paid if it falls under night work”, and “at least 50/100 of ordinary wages shall be paid if it falls under holiday work” are comprised of three sentences, and it is merely a combination of these three sentences by linking them with “or”.

Since Article 56 of the aforementioned Act provides for the respective economic compensation standards for overtime, night, and holiday work, it is reasonable to interpret that an employer shall pay additional wages to him/her if he/she falls under any of the above provisions, and that additional wages shall be paid in duplicate if he/she satisfies other requirements in duplicate. It is consistent with the form and system of the language and text of the above provision. It does not mean that the above provision does not provide that “each additional wage shall be paid in duplicate” should not be paid in duplicate on the ground

(B) If a night work concurrently engages in overtime work, premium pay for night work and premium pay for overtime work, and if a night work concurrently engages in overtime work, there is no theory regarding the duplicate payment of premium pay for night work and premium pay for holiday work. In addition, there is no provision regarding any specific work among overtime, night work, and holiday work that should be treated differently. Nevertheless, if it is interpreted that premium pay for overtime work and overtime work should not be doublely paid, it is not permissible to interpret the same structure provision in a different way despite the fact that Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act concurrently prescribes overtime work, night work, and holiday work.

(2) In addition to the aforementioned literal interpretation as to Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act, as well as holiday work performed in excess of weekly standard working hours, premium pay should be paid not only for holiday work but also for overtime work.

(A) Holidays are different in nature from overtime work, and the purport of compensation and regulation for premium pay under Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act is entirely different.

(1) overtime work is related to the length of total working hours, on which the absolute total quantity of such hours is the basis of self-regulation, while night work is not the same as the purpose and nature of each protection in that the location of working hours is the basis of self-regulation, namely, a specific day of a week during a day, holiday work, or a specific day of a week during a day, i.e., holiday work, or the standard of determination

(2) The purpose of holiday work is to guarantee workers’ rights and the right to live a decent life as prescribed by the Constitution by providing minimum break time per week, protecting health, developing workers’ self-development and making good use of their leisure time. As such, the value of independent compensation is very high as for night work, as in night work, inasmuch as holiday work and partial nature are the same for the purpose of guaranteeing the rest time of workers. However, inasmuch as overtime work also plays an important role in protecting workers and determining working conditions under a labor contract by restricting the total number of working hours per day or week, it is sufficient to recognize independent compensation value in itself.

③ The Labor Standards Act separately provides for protection provisions that restrict holiday work and night work for women, pregnant women, and those under the age of 18 (Article 70). This also sets forth that holiday work is distinct from overtime work.

④ Examining the purport of Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act stipulating premium pay in terms of the regulation of working hours, in cases of overtime work, to prevent the employer from working in excess of the standard working hours by increasing monetary burdens, thereby promoting compliance with the standard working hours, and to prevent work performed on holidays for which the employer is not obliged to provide labor by increasing monetary burdens, thereby promoting effectiveness of the holiday work system. As can be seen, the premium pay system based on overtime work and the premium pay system based on holiday work differ in the regulatory purpose.

(B) Examining the provisions of Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act and Articles 50 and 53 of the same Act, which are related provisions, to interpret that holiday work hours are included in overtime work hours subject to premium pay under Article 56 of the same Act accords with the legal systematic interpretation and definition of the relevant provisions.

Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act explicitly states the scope of work eligible for premium pay as “Extended work (work during extended hours as extended pursuant to Articles 53, 59, and the proviso of Article 69), night work (work between 10:0 p.m. and 6:0 a.m.), or holiday work.” “work during extended hours as extended pursuant to Article 53” means work exceeding 8 hours per day, 100 p.m., and 40 hours per week, under Article 50, and does not distinguish whether such work was conducted during night work as well as work during extended hours. On the contrary, night work is separate from work performed during extended hours, in that it is itself used as a concept that “work during extended hours from 10:0 p.m. and 6:0 a.m., holiday work.” Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act is separate from work performed during night hours or holiday work, and thus, it is not included in the concept of overtime work or holiday work hours under Article 50.

D. Meanwhile, the logic of the Majority Opinion is difficult to accept as it is, on the other hand, because there are difficulties as follows, and the conclusion is unreasonable.

(1) Above all, according to the Majority Opinion, the maximum weekly working hours scheduled under the former Labor Standards Act are not clearly determined.

(A) The Majority Opinion, rather than 52 hours a week’s maximum working hours, is understood to have premised on the total of 68 hours including 40 hours a week standard working hours and 12 hours a week overtime working hours and 2 days a week working day (ordinaryly, Saturdays and Sundays) working day, and 8 hours a week working day, respectively, as in the administrative interpretation of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

However, our Labor Standards Act does not prohibit holiday work, and does not have a separate provision that limits the maximum limit of holiday work hours. As the Majority Opinion, if the provision that overtime work is allowed within the standard working hours of 40 hours a week and maximum of 12 hours a week does not regulate holiday work, it is unclear whether holiday work is permitted only 8 hours a day under Article 50(2) of the Labor Standards Act, or if there is an agreement between the parties, it is possible to allow overtime work exceeding 8 hours a day on holiday work. Ultimately, the maximum working hours a week, which the former Labor Standards Act permits by interpretation, are not limited to 68 hours as above, but also possible.

(B) Even if holiday work is permitted for up to 8 hours a day, there is a problem that the maximum weekly working hours vary depending on whether the contractual working hours and holidays on which the worker and the employer have a duty to work are agreed at one week, respectively.

For example, under an employment contract or collective agreement, four days from the day to the day of a week shall be designated as the contractual working day, and on Sundays from the day to the day of a week, the workplace shall be deemed to have agreed from the day of a week to the day of a paid holiday ( from the day of an agreement, an unpaid holiday, and a paid holiday in the case of Sundays). In this case, from the day of a week to the day of a day of a day, 52 hours including the extended working hours can be worked up to 40 hours per week, and 12 hours per week from the day of a day of a day to the day of a day of a day of a day (one 13 hours per day), and 24 hours per day from the day of a day of a day of a day to the day of a day of a day, 3 hours per day. According to the Majority Opinion, it would reach a conclusion that the former Labor Standards Act permits 76 hours per week to the maximum working hours per week. Ultimately, how to set a contractual working day between workers and an individual worker, may result in changes in the previous one week.

(2) In addition, the Majority Opinion is inconsistent with the process of changing the regulations on working hours under the Labor Standards Act, which has repeatedly reduced weekly standard working hours to improve the quality of workers’ life.

Since the enactment of the Labor Standards Act, everyone week’s maximum working hours have been reduced from 48 hours to 44 hours a week, while maintaining the regulations on weekly working hours and 12 hours a week’s working hours. However, if the Majority Opinion that does not include holiday work (the premise of 8 hours a day) in weekly standard working hours and overtime working hours is consistent, the maximum working hours per week under the Labor Standards Act (i.e., 48 hours a day + 12 hours a day + 8 hours a day) was reduced to 64 hours a week from 68 hours a week (i.e., 44 hours a week standard working hours + 12 hours a week + 8 hours a week), and again, 68 hours a week (the standard working hours + 40 hours a week ＋ 12 hours a day + 16 hours a total 8 hours an increase in time) is inconsistent with the direction of the legislators.

(3) Although holiday work constitutes overtime work, the Majority Opinion’s conclusion that there is no need to pay premium pay, also leads to the result that it is difficult to accept as follows.

(A) Comparing holiday work at the same time and holiday work not included in overtime work, there is a greater need to protect workers and regulate working hours as the former demands a more sacrifice to workers. Duly, it is more reasonable to repeatedly pay premium pay for such work. Nevertheless, the same handling of the former and the latter in relation to the payment of premium pay goes against the concept of justice as it equally treats the same.

(B) Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act, as a mandatory provision, provides that one of the cases of overtime work, night work, and holiday work is subject to criminal punishment when the violation is committed (Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act). However, interpreting that one of the cases of overtime work, night work, and holiday work falls under two or more of the above additional grounds may result in the evasion of the Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory provision.

E. Therefore, if a worker worked on a holiday in excess of 40 hours a week standard working hours under the former Act, it shall be interpreted that the worker should pay premium according to holiday work and overtime work as well as overtime work.

F. In the same purport, the lower court’s determination that holiday work exceeding 40 hours a week constitutes overtime work at the same time, and thus, ought to be paid premium pay for overtime work in addition to premium pay. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the limit of overtime work, the requirements for payment of premium pay for overtime work and holiday work, and whether premium pay overlaps, or by exceeding the bounds

For the foregoing reasons, we express our concurrence with the Majority Opinion.

6. Concurrence with the Majority by Justice Park Sang-ok

A. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Constitution”) has the basis for the separation of powers to protect the constitutional order from concentration and abuse of state power and to protect the fundamental rights of the people by having different State agencies allocate and take charge of the state action in a reasonable way in its function, and maintaining mutual checks and balance.

The scope and limitation of the powers and responsibilities of state agencies under the Constitution should be exercised and observed as provided by the Constitution. This is the principle of checks and balance in accordance with the principle of separation of powers based on the Constitution. State agencies can ensure the efficient operation of state functions and form an integrated State intention by performing the functions vested in each party in such checks and balance.

The Constitution stipulates that the legislative power among the state power belongs to the National Assembly, and the judicial power belongs to the court composed of judges (Articles 40 and 101 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea).

Therefore, the power of courts on the interpretation and application of the legal provisions should be exercised to the extent that it does not infringe on the legislative power of the National Assembly or the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution.

B. Articles 50(1) and 53(1) of the former Labor Standards Act, the issues of the instant case, did not have a separate definition as to the meaning of “one week”. Other provisions using the term “one week” do not have any different definition as to their meaning.

Therefore, interpreting “1 week” as the 7th day from the Saturday to Sundays or as the 7th day from Saturdays is faithful to the language and text. If such interpretation is followed, it is deemed that labor exceeding the 1 week standard working hours made on holidays under the former Labor Standards Act, such as the Dissenting Opinion.

C. However, while revising the Labor Standards Act on March 20, 2018, the National Assembly made it clear that the regulation of weekly standard working hours under the former Labor Standards Act does not fall under holiday work for the following reasons.

(1) In addition to the definition of “one week” under Article 2(1)7 of the amended Labor Standards Act, the term “one week” refers to seven days, including holidays, and sets forth that the maximum working hours are not 68 hours but 52 hours per week. However, the enforcement period of the above definition provision different depending on the scale of each workplace under Article 1(2) of the Addenda (in the case of more than 300 workplaces, January 1, 2020; in the case of workplaces with not less than 50 but less than 300 employees, July 1, 2020; and in the case of workplaces with not less than 5 but less than 50 employees, July 1, 2021). In addition, a temporary period of working (from July 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022, Articles 53(3), 1, 2(3), and 2(3) of the Addenda).

(2) The amendment of the Labor Standards Act provides for the definition and supplementary provisions as above shall only be interpreted to mean that legislators recognize that the maximum weekly working hours are 68 hours under the former Labor Standards Act, and put in place a step to 52 hours.

If the legislators consider that the maximum working hours per week under the former Labor Standards Act is 52 hours the same as the amended Labor Standards Act, there was no need to establish a definition provision or a provision to suspend enforcement of the Addenda, and there was no reason to establish a provision to increase the maximum working hours by 60 hours for a workplace with less than 30 persons in violation of the legislative intent of the Addenda of the Act to reduce the maximum working hours per week.

D. In principle, the interpretation of the law shall be faithfully interpreted in the ordinary meaning of the language and text used in the law, and it shall be done by comprehensively taking into account the legislative intent, purpose, history of the enactment and amendment, system within the legal order, etc.

However, if only the literal interpretation of this case is dismissed, the provision of the amended Labor Standards Act, which the legislative body finally completed by taking into account the position of the interested parties and the labor-management as a result of a long-term discussion, would be circumvented. Furthermore, the legislative body’s coercions the legislative body to make new legislation to alleviate the burden of the company that had been considered at the time of the enactment of the amended Labor Standards Act, thereby causing conflict with the judicial power and legislative power. Ultimately, this would cause serious social and economic confusion at the national level.

With respect to a case where the legislative policy character, such as the maximum working hours per week, is strong, the court needs to maintain uniformity of the legal order and prevent social confusion by harmoniously interpreting the law before and after the amendment. The above points should be considered as the limit of the interpretation of the language and text.

E. Therefore, deeming one week under the former Labor Standards Act as seven days including holidays as the ordinary meaning of the language and text. However, the legislators stipulated the intent that holiday work hours are not included in weekly standard work hours and weekly overtime work hours by enacting definition and supplementary provisions under the amended Labor Standards Act.

If a statutory provision is interpreted to oppose the legislative intent explicitly confirmed by the court, it may be mistaken for a violation of the principle of separation of powers beyond the bounds of judicial power. If, as a result of the exercise of judicial power given to the court, conflicts among state agencies arise, or the state’s organic and integrated decision-making is delayed, confusion is only caused to the people. The court must refrain from such act.

As above, I express my concurrence with the Majority Opinion.

7. Concurrence with the Majority by Justice Kim Jae-hyung

A. Even if holiday work hours are included in weekly standard work hours and weekly overtime work hours under the former Act, the conclusion of the Majority Opinion that the premium pay for holiday work and overtime work cannot be paid in duplicate can be derived through the interpretation of Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act.

B. Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act explicitly states that premium pay should be paid for three types of work, such as overtime work, night work, and holiday work, but there is no explicit provision regarding whether premium pay should also be paid in cases where a certain amount of work falls under two or more overlapping types of work. If the grounds for wage pay overlap, not only other types of work but also overtime work exceeding a weekly standard working hours may also be included in the same type of work, such as overtime work exceeding a weekly standard working hours.

In such cases, whether additional wage should be paid in duplicate is a matter of legislative policy, but if the provisions of the law are unclear, it should be applied through interpretation of the law.

If a literal, legal, and teleological interpretation is made by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the provisions related to premium pay for overtime work, the legal nature of overtime work and holiday work, history and legislative intent, and comparative legal data as to overtime work under the Labor Standards Act, even if holiday work constitutes overtime work performed in excess of 40 hours per week standard working hours under the Labor Standards Act, the duty to pay premium pay for overtime work in addition to overtime work hours cannot be recognized. The detailed reasons are as follows.

(1) The literal interpretation of Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act alone does not lead to the conclusion as to whether premium pay for overtime work and holiday work overlap.

In light of Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act, overtime work, night work, and holiday work are connected with the survey of “A” and “or,” respectively. “A” is an associate with the survey of two or more things in the same capacity, and “or, if not,” the meaning of “a person who uses “A/A” and “a person who uses” in connection with two or more words is generally deemed to have different meanings. Therefore, listing the words as “a person who uses B/A” and “a person who uses two or more words is bound to have controversy over the interpretation thereof.

In a case where two or more requirements are met by using “a”, more relevance and common points between the requirements are used, and there is a lot of room to deem that only one legal effect is recognized by one of the elements. Therefore, unlike “Extended work and night work” under the above provision, it is more reasonable to deem that holiday work is connected to “or” and “absent work”, and that it is sufficient to pay more than 50 percent of ordinary wages in addition to overtime work and holiday work at the same time.

However, the Act does not always refer to both cases where the same meaning is used in both cases, and the interpretation of the Act may vary depending on the context. The Act does not explicitly affirm whether premium pay should be made for overtime work and holiday work. The interpretation of Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act does not clearly determine whether to duplicate payment of premium pay for both two labor.

The meaning of the legal text should be determined in accordance with the language usage used by the members of our society. It shows that there have been a variety of opinions regarding the overlapping payment of additional wages among the members of our society and that the amendment of the above provision itself is unclear.

Although the literal interpretation is the basis and starting point of the legal interpretation, it is desirable to review the meaning of the provision, including the legislative intent and purpose, rather than clearly resolving the problem by the literal interpretation in this debate.

(2) Even if holiday work at the same time constitutes overtime work, holiday work not exceeding eight hours per day cannot be deemed as having an independent evaluation value different from ordinary overtime work.

(A) A holiday work and overtime work are both worked during the hours during which a worker has no duty to provide labor, and there is a common sense that the compensation is based on the suspension of workers’ rest, restriction on free work hours, and the need to pay more remuneration for work performed even if the worker has no duty to provide labor. Holiday work and overtime work are based on a common proof of work performed after the completion of both the duty to provide labor, and the basis for wage premium in light of their nature is the same. If holiday work falls under overtime work in terms of the regulation of weekly work hours, it is limited to the legal assessment of the same hour, and it is not evaluated differently from the quantitative aspect of the work hours, and thus, the purpose of wage

In a case where overtime work exceeds eight hours of contractual working days, not on holidays, and at the same time falls under overtime work exceeding one week standard working hours, it is not deemed that additional wages should be paid in accordance with the same type of overtime work. The duplicate payment constitutes double evaluation. The same applies to holiday work and overtime work.

(B) Generally, since the contractual work hours per week are set in advance to meet weekly standard work hours, most of the holiday work hours after the completion of contractual work per week constitute overtime work performed in excess of standard work hours.

Therefore, even if holiday work falls under both overtime work and overtime work at the same time, this is merely a typical type of holiday work. Ultimately, it is sufficient to pay premium pay for holiday work pursuant to Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act, and it is a double evaluation of the same work performed at a specific time to repeatedly pay premium pay for holiday work.

(C) The nature of holiday work and overtime work differs from that of night work, which reflects the qualitative characteristics of working hours. In other words, night work is distinguishable from holiday work, which is qualitatively divided into physical and mental skin or work intensity and is in the nature of overtime work.

Considering such differences between night work and overtime work, even if the payment of premium pay is recognized for both night work and overtime work and night work, it is difficult to readily conclude that the payment of premium pay is against equity or unreasonable compared to the double payment of premium pay for holiday work and overtime work.

(3) In light of the legislative history of Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act, it is apparent that holiday work does not have to be paid overtime work in addition to the premium pay.

(A) At the time of the enactment of the Labor Standards Act, Article 48 of the original Labor Standards Act provides, “When an employer extends working hours pursuant to Articles 44 and 45, an employer shall pay an amount of not less than 30 percent of ordinary wages, and, if an employer has worked between 10:0 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., an amount of not less than 50 percent of ordinary wages shall be added to the excess portion,” while providing for additional provisions on overtime, night, or holiday work as prescribed by the former Labor Standards Act.”

A higher premium rate is set for holiday work than overtime work in the original Labor Standards Act. Although both overtime work and holiday work are worked during the hours in which the duty to provide labor is not fulfilled, it is understood that there is no difference in that it infringes on the worker’s right to rest, it is more likely that the infringement of the right to rest for holiday work than overtime work in the original working day. This is understood as the fact that it focuses on treating holiday work and overtime work separately, and it does not seem to have taken into account the possibility of overlapping premium pay from the beginning.

(B) However, in the process of the National Assembly’s deliberation, a paid holiday wage is paid even if a worker does not work on a holiday, and thus, even if a worker pays additional wages for holiday work on the same day, it is sufficient to regulate and compensate for holiday work, the employer has passed the amendment to the effect that “the employer shall add 50/10 or more of ordinary wages to overtime work (the overtime work as extended under Articles 42 and 43) and night work (the hours from 10:0 p.m. to 6:0 p.m.), and the employer shall not refuse the payment of wages on a holiday as prescribed by this Act on the ground that the worker pays the paid holiday wage on the relevant day (the wage payment under this Act).” Accordingly, the employer made it clear that the premium pay for holiday work is not recognized, and at the same time, it does not apply to overtime work.

(C) Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act amended in 1961 (amended by Act No. 2708, Dec. 24, 1974; hereinafter “1961 Labor Standards Act”) provides that “An employer shall pay more than 50/100 of the ordinary wage for extended hours of work, night work, or holiday work, in addition to the ordinary wage.” This changed to recognize the payment of premium pay for holiday work itself, which was controversial in the current Labor Standards Act, while maintaining the overall form of the provision on premium pay pursuant to overtime work, etc.

(D) On September 25, 1962, Article 24-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 4220, Nov. 10, 1969) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4220, Nov. 10, 1969) provides that “Holiday work as prescribed in Article 46 of the Act refers to any paid holiday work,” and Articles 45, 47, and 48 of the Act include any wage that is naturally paid as a paid holiday work, and any ordinary wage for work of the said paid holiday work (Paragraph 2).” According to the Enforcement Decree, the provision on holiday work under the Labor Standards Act of 1961 applies only to paid holiday work, not to the rest of paid holiday work, and the wage for paid holiday work on the day, as well as the wage for paid holiday work on the day, cannot be seen as having been paid for paid holiday work even if the paid holiday work overlaps with the paid holiday work.

The above provision of the Enforcement Decree was deleted on January 29, 1981. As a result, even if it was changed to the payment of premium for holiday work regardless of whether it is a paid holiday, it is difficult to deem that the payment of premium for holiday work was made only by allowing the payment of premium, which was not paid on paid holiday, and furthermore, compelling the payment of premium for overtime work.

(4) As mentioned in the Majority Opinion, there was almost no dispute over the duplicate payment of premium pay on the ground that the provision on premium pay for holiday work was newly established in 1961 and that holiday work constitutes overtime work performed in excess of a weekly standard working hours during the past two months. This was not a social problem and there was no discussion in academic circles in a profound manner. Administrative interpretation of the administrative agency did not recognize such duplicate payment, and there was no criminal and administrative measure on the ground that premium pay for holiday work performed in excess of a weekly standard working hours was unpaid.

In full view of these circumstances, there was not only lack of awareness that holiday work performed in excess of the standard working hours per week by both an employer and an employee constitutes overtime work, but also, through repeated practices, the principle of “the premium pay for holiday work shall not be paid in duplicate according to overtime work” is a kind of social norm regulating labor-management relations, even though it did not reach the recognition or demotion of legal conviction and recognition.

(5) In light of the foreign legislative cases on premium pay for overtime work, it can be seen that the premium rate for overtime work and holiday work is less than 50%, respectively, and that the premium rate for overtime work and holiday work is less than 50%, and that the premium rate for overtime work and holiday work is more than 50%, respectively, and that the premium rate for overtime work and holiday work is higher than 50% from the beginning. On the other hand, Article 56 of the former Act of the Republic of Korea sets a high premium rate for overtime work and holiday work respectively. This is understood to protect workers’ rights by establishing a high premium rate from the beginning as a means of compensation and suppression for overtime work and holiday work so that workers’ rights can be sufficiently compensated for overtime work. Ultimately, even if holiday work constitute overtime work, it cannot be deemed that the premium rate is anticipated to be added in duplicate.

(6) Meanwhile, such interpretation has been able to raise questions as to whether it is inconsistent with the trend of the regulation of working hours that has been left the string of the past times. However, the premium wage system that intends to restrain overtime work and holiday work by imposing financial burden on the employer in advance cannot be denied that the interests of the employer who intends not to employ new workers and the interests of the worker who wishes to receive more wages have reached a negative consequence of the maximum working hours, as the interests of the employer are consistent with each other. The desirable direction of the Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory provision, for holiday work, should not be double payment of premium pay, but also be the direction of guaranteeing alternative holidays in cases where there are reasons to recognize holiday work exceptionally. Despite the recent amendment of the Labor Standards Act, more desirable legislation is needed from the long-term perspective.

As above, I express my concurrence with the Majority Opinion.

8. Concurrence with the Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kim Shin

As pointed out in the majority opinion, according to the interpretation of the former Labor Standards Act, it is naturally confirmed that the maximum working hours per week are 52 hours, and as a result, there is a problem that the supplementary provisions of the amended Labor Standards Act become invalid. Nevertheless, I express my opinion that the Dissenting Opinion is bound to take effect as follows.

A. As the Dissenting Opinion demonstrates in detail, it is apparent in the interpretation of the former Labor Standards Act that the maximum working hours per week, including holiday working hours, are 52 hours, notwithstanding the administrative interpretation of the Ministry of Employment and Labor in the past. In addition, such interpretation of the former Labor Standards Act may not be changed before and after the amendment of the Labor Standards Act on the ground that the amendment of the said Act was made during the litigation in the instant case. In other words, prior to the promulgation of the amended Labor Standards Act, deeming that only a maximum of 52 hours per week is allowed under the former Labor Standards Act, but the interpretation that the former Labor Standards Act was promulgated cannot be changed to the effect that the maximum working hours per week was allowed until 68 hours or longer.

Of course, if the revised Labor Standards Act is amended to regulate the existing legal relationship at the time when the former Labor Standards Act was applied, it may be viewed differently. However, this is not a matter of retroactive legislation, but a matter of interpretation of the former Labor Standards Act. Meanwhile, there is no provision that seeks retroactive legislation under the amended Labor Standards Act, nor there is no relevant legislative data that can confirm such intent.

B. If the language and text itself is not clear when interpreting the law, it is reasonable to interpret the law equally in consideration of the legislative intent and purpose, and even in that case, the legislative intent and purpose of the court should be examined in the process of statutory interpretation and the discovery of the law are currently applicable to the law.

However, it does not need to be reconvened that it is natural to interpret a weekly maximum working hours as 52 hours under the language and text of the former Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, since the revised Labor Standards Act regulates future legal relations after its promulgation, legislative intent is also toward the future. As such, the interpretation of the former Labor Standards Act, which applies to the instant case, does not depend on the legislative intent and purpose of the amended Labor Standards Act.

In addition, it is doubtful whether legislators with respect to the amended Labor Standards Act referred to in the Majority Opinion have a single legislative intent, and whether such intent is explicitly verifiable. Even if this is affirmed, it is understood that the legislative intent of the Ministry of Employment and Labor is to ensure the substantial normative power of the provisions of the former Labor Standards Act regarding the fact that the maximum working hours per week are 52 hours under the premise that the regulations on working hours are actually being implemented in accordance with the administrative interpretation of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. Furthermore, even though the legislative authority is not granted to the legislative body in accordance with the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution, the legislative body has reached the conclusion that the maximum working hours per week is 68 hours, as it does not work, and it cannot be deemed that the amended Labor Standards Act was enacted on such premise. Even if resolving the issues of the actual reduction of working hours and the maximum working hours per week is 52 hours including holiday work, the legislative interpretation of the former Labor Standards Act is not clearly made in line with the legislative intent and purpose of reducing the actual working hours at the scene, or the legislative interpretation of the Labor Standards Act is clearly made.

C. Of course, regardless of such legal debate, it is desirable for the highest court to finally resolve the legal disputes between the parties through legal interpretation, and ultimately resolve the social conflicts among the interested parties surrounding them. Nevertheless, the essence of the judiciary is to guarantee fundamental rights of the people and to protect constitutional values, and the court may not waive legitimate legal interpretation in consideration of economic situation or political compromise with respect to the request for protection of rights of the people. Despite some of the revised Labor Standards Act and concerns thereof, it must be declared that there has been a legitimate interpretation in relation to the former Labor Standards Act based on the legal interpretation authority granted by the Constitution.

As above, I express my concurrence with the Dissenting Opinion.

Justices Kim Young-soo (Presiding Justice)