The validity of a labor contract that determines a specific amount calculated by adding various allowances, such as overtime work, to monthly pay;

Even if a contract was concluded with the contents of payment of a certain amount every month as overtime work allowances, night and holiday work allowances under the consent of the worker in consideration of working hours, forms of employment and the nature of work, etc. after determining the basic wages at the time of concluding a labor contract, it shall not be null and void if it is not disadvantageous to the worker and it is deemed justifiable in light of all circumstances.

Articles 22, 46, 47, and 48-2 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2384 Delivered on March 9, 1982

Plaintiff 1 and one other

International Korea Transportation Corporation

Daegu High Court Decision 80Na681 delivered on December 10, 1981

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Articles 22 and 46 through 48 of the Labor Standards Act, an employer shall specify wages, working hours, and other working conditions for workers at the time of concluding a labor contract, and wages shall be paid in addition to the basic wages, various allowances for overtime work, night work, holiday work, etc. Thus, in principle, the determination of the basic wages by a labor contract and the calculation of the various allowances shall be made in addition to the basic wages, and even if a contract was entered into with the worker’s consent to pay a certain amount monthly allowances under the worker’s consent, taking into account working hours, work form, and the nature of the work, it shall not be deemed null and void if there is no disadvantage to the worker and it is deemed justifiable in light of all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da238

2. The judgment of the court below acknowledged that the defendant company paid overtime work, night work, and holiday work allowances to the plaintiffs in addition to basic wages by taking into account the work hours in this case and the forms of work and the nature of work, etc. as stated in its holding. The plaintiffs concluded the above labor contract with the defendant company on the premise of overtime work, night work, and holiday work as a matter of course, taking into account the above work hours, work patterns, and the nature of work, etc. at the time of conclusion of the labor contract, and it can be said that the above basic wages and allowances were paid as wages. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs and the same workers who are in principle engaged in night work and holiday work can claim allowances such as overtime work, night work, and holiday work, as they can be claimed by ordinary workers under Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act by allowing them to do overtime work, night work, and holiday work, and it cannot be viewed that there are errors in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Labor Standards Act and the decision of the court below 2010.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)