logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2020.04.29 2016다267159
임금
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that bonuses, meal allowance, long-term continuous service allowance, traffic allowance, job class allowance, and special area service allowance are fixed wages which are regularly and uniformly paid, and thus, constituted ordinary wages.

According to the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that overtime allowance is an agreed allowance on the ground that the Plaintiff’s overtime allowance is a statutory allowance that is paid as overtime pay, but it is merely a statutory allowance that sets the limit of the amount paid.

According to the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal nature of overtime allowances.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's claim in this case violates the principle of good faith on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that imposing additional burden on overtime allowances on the defendant based on ordinary wages, including bonuses, would cause serious difficulties in the defendant's operation or endanger its existence, in light of the fact that the defendant compiled a certain budget in preparation for the payment of wages according to the ordinary wage lawsuit, and flexible expenditure is

According to the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the good faith principle

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

arrow