Whether the Labor Standards Act applies to workers engaged in the business of manufacturing sun-dried salt

Since a sun-dried manufacturing business is considered as a fishery business stipulated in Article 49 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, the application of the provisions on recess and holiday as stipulated in Chapter 5 of the Labor Standards Act to workers engaged in such business is excluded.

Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da592 delivered on June 7, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 1252Da1252, Decision 47(2) of the Labor Standards Act) 65Da1593 delivered on November 30, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1536 delivered on November 30, 1965, Decision 49(2)1601 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff 1 and 28 others

Korea Salt Business Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (64A3182) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 64Da3182)

The appeal by the plaintiff et al. is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The defendant's attorney, including the plaintiff, etc., shall pay to the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 an amount of 30,741 won for each of 30,741 won for the plaintiff 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 14,710 won for the plaintiff 26, 27, and 28, and 16,031 won for each of them and 5 percent for each of them from the following day of service to the date of completion.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution. The defendant's attorney is seeking a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff's agent has cancelled the original judgment and sought a judgment on the same place of claim and a provisional execution judgment, and the defendant's agent has sought a judgment on the same place of order.

The defendant is a company established pursuant to the Salt Business Co., Ltd. Act (No. 1,421, Oct. 28, 1963) and comprehensively succeeds to rights and duties arising from national salt farms, etc. from the State, and the office of pre-sale of the Republic of Korea has employed the plaintiff, etc. as temporary salt in two times during the period from April 1, 1962 to October 31, 1963, and from October 31, 1963, there is no dispute between the parties concerned. Thus, it is difficult for the plaintiff, etc. to consider the above two times of filing a claim for overtime allowance and monthly paid leave allowance, etc., and the Labor Standards Act provides that it is difficult for the plaintiff, etc. to make a decision on the remaining hours and monthly paid leave (the plaintiff, etc. to the plaintiff, etc. pursuant to this provision), but according to Article 49 of the same Act, it is difficult to determine that the non-party 2's testimony cannot be applied to the non-party 1 to the above non-party 2's testimony.

(2) Then, if the plaintiff et al.'s claim for dismissal allowance was examined, and the purport of the argument is all the whole purport of the pleading with the testimony of the non-party 1 of the original trial witness, the relationship between the plaintiff et al. and the defendant company (the office of the main body of the telegraphic body) was known from the beginning to the fact that the working period of the salt farm was known from April to October every year, and the working period can be acknowledged as the fact that the non-party 2 of the original trial witness agreed implicitly from April to October of the employed year. The testimony of the non-party 2 of the original trial witness cannot be believed to be difficult to believe it, and even if the submission of the plaintiff et al.'s representative was made, it is impossible to reverse the above recognition even though it does not fall under Article 29 of the Labor Standards Act, even if it does not fall under the labor contract with a certain period, it is interpreted that Article 27-2 of the Labor Standards Act is not applicable, and even if the remaining part of the plaintiff et al.'s claim for mistake cannot be determined by the above recognition.

Therefore, the plaintiff et al.'s claim shall be dismissed, and the original judgment, which is the same conclusion, is just, and the appeal by the plaintiff et al. shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by

Judges Lee Jae-su (Presiding Judge)