logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.29 2015노3953
근로기준법위반
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) concluded a comprehensive wage contract with the content that the number of days of annual leave E at the time of entering into a labor contract shall be six days, and that the total amount of the annual leave allowances shall be paid as annual salary without separately paying allowances for the remaining days of annual leave. As such, the Defendant is not obliged to additionally pay the annual leave allowances to E.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (700,000 won in penalty) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The principle of wage payment according to the standard work hours under the Labor Standards Act shall apply to the judgment on the grounds of Defendant’s appeal unless it is difficult to calculate working hours, such as surveillance and intermittent work, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the provision on working hours under the standard work hours cannot be applied as it is. In such a case, entering into a comprehensive wage system with the content that a certain amount of working hours is paid as legal allowances regardless of the number of working hours is not permissible unless it violates the regulation on working hours under the standard work hours Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6052, May 13, 2010), and each of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) labor contracts concluded between employee E and D does not contain the contents on comprehensive wage contracts as alleged by Defendant, and (ii) labor contracts concluded between the above E and the above employee F of the company that entered into the labor contract with E are not stated in the annual salary as notified to E at the court below.

arrow