The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The lower court determined that each of the above allowances constitutes ordinary wages paid regularly, uniformly, and fixedly, in consideration of the fact that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant did not pay each of the above allowances to the retired workers in the middle of the period, the lower court determined that each of the above allowances constitutes regular, uniform, and ordinary wages in consideration of labor.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the

2. As to the duplicate payment of premium pay for holiday work and overtime work

A. The lower court determined that holiday work allowance and overtime work allowance should be paid for the pertinent work hours on the grounds that overtime work, i.e., overtime work (hereinafter “Extended work”) conducted during holiday work hours or on holidays exceeding 40 hours a week, also has the same nature as holiday work and overtime work.

B. However, given that holiday work hours under the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “former Labor Standards Act”) do not include weekly standard work hours and weekly overtime work hours, the premium pay and overtime work hours cannot be paid in duplicate.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da112391 Decided June 21, 2018). C.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the premium pay for holiday work and overtime work should be paid in duplicate.