A. Effect of Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act

B. Whether Article 48(4) of the Labor Standards Act applies to paid holidays

1. Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act shall not be deemed null and void as it goes against Article 45 of the Labor Standards Act as the mother corporation.

2. In calculating annual paid holidays as stipulated in Article 48 (4) of the Labor Standards Act, the provision that the period of suspension of work due to occupational injury or disease shall not be considered to have been naturally applied to paid holidays as stipulated in Article 45 of the Labor Standards Act;

Articles 45 and 48(4) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff Kim-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Cho Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na1034 delivered on July 20, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, as to the facts constituting the premise of the plaintiff's claim of this case, that is, whether the plaintiff's paid holiday is the plaintiff, the court below held that the defendant Corporation set every week's Sundays as paid holiday pursuant to Article 45 of the Labor Standards Act and the main sentence of Article 19 of the collective agreement of the defendant Corporation, and paid ordinary wages to workers, and pursuant to Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, the term "paid more than once a week average as provided in Article 45 of the Act refers to paid holiday for those who opened the prescribed working days, and the proviso of Article 19 of the collective agreement of the defendant Corporation provides that the above provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act shall be paid holiday for five days or more of the preceding week as paid holiday in favor of workers. Since the plaintiff is the person who worked at all during the week prior to August 21, 197, the above provision shall not be viewed as a paid holiday for the plaintiff.

(1) The records are compared to the records.

The above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to paid holidays such as theory of lawsuit.

The theory of the lawsuit is invalid because Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act is in conflict with Article 45 of the Labor Standards Act as the mother corporation, or in calculating the annual paid leave under Article 48 (4) of the Labor Standards Act, the provision that the employee shall be deemed to have worked for the period of time suspension of work due to occupational injury or disease is based on the independent opinion that the employee shall be deemed to have worked as a matter of course in the case of paid leave under Article 45

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)