1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The court's explanation of this case is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Considering the Plaintiff’s assertion and determination of the Plaintiff’s labor contract’s experience and position, it is reasonable to receive high wages compared to other Korean employees. As such, 1,385KD is not monthly wages, but monthly basic wages. Pursuant to Article 53(1) of the Labor Standards Act, work hours per week can be extended by 40 hours, which is 52 hours under Article 50 of the same Act, up to 12 hours, so deeming that a labor contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as 60 hours per week is in itself a violation of mandatory law, and a labor contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as 1,385K, 85K, 8 hours per day, and 6 days per week.

At the time when the Plaintiff was working for overtime work, the employees belonging to the Defendant did not separately prepare a separate set when the Plaintiff worked for overtime work, but only prepare another set when some foreign employees work for the daily overtime work after the Plaintiff retired.

Even if the plaintiff did not write the other ad hoc work, he/she is obliged to pay overtime allowances in accordance with the working hours publicly notified by e-mail.

Judgment

The following facts are recognized in full view of the evidence No. 17, Eul evidence No. 23-1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the fact that the determination of the contents of the labor contract is recognized:

The plaintiff was in charge of collecting data and managing meetings at the site of this case, and the plaintiff was withdrawn from a company previously employed and was unemployed, and received employment proposals from D, which is the head of the site of this case, during which he was unemployed, and entered into an employment contract with the defendant.