The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, examining the contents and structure of Article 50(1) and (2), Articles 53(1), 55, and 56 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”) and Article 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29010, Jun. 29, 2018); the legislative intent and purpose that can be known through the legislative history and purpose of the amendment of the former Labor Standards Act; awareness of the parties to labor relations; existing labor practices; and the Addenda of the amended Labor Standards Act, holiday work hours under the former Labor Standards Act are not included in “40 hours per week standard working hours”; thus, premium pay for holiday work and overtime work hours cannot be paid in duplicate.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da112391 Decided June 21, 2018 (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da112391, Jun. 21, 2018). Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the grounds stated in its reasoning that premium pay and overtime allowance

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the meaning of “one week” as stipulated in Articles 50 and 53 of the former Labor Standards Act, and the legal doctrine on the payment of each additional wage based on holiday work and overtime work under Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, in order for money and valuables paid by an employer to an employee to constitute wages, such money and valuables should first be paid as remuneration for work. Thus, even if such money and valuables were paid continuously and regularly, if such money and valuables cannot be deemed as being paid as remuneration for work, it cannot

Here, the occurrence of the duty to pay money or goods is directly related to the provision of labor when determining which money or goods are paid as the object of labor.