2016Da25409 Wages

It is as shown in the attached list of plaintiffs.

[Judgment of the court below]

person

U.S. Stock Company

Law Firm LLC (LLC) LLC, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Choi Dong-dong, Justice Park Hong-hoon, Justice Cho Jae-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2006963 Decided September 7, 2016

September 13, 2018

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Plaintiffs’ appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The gist of the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal is that the court below's judgment that recognized only 10 minutes each, without recognizing 25 minutes each time as alleged by the plaintiffs while the time of reorganization before and after the commencement of the business is included in the work hours of the plaintiffs. However, this is merely an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive right of deliberation, which is a fact-finding court, and it is difficult to view the judgment of the court below as legitimate grounds of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the records, the court below did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Claim on the calculation of actual working hours

The gist of this part of the Defendant’s ground of appeal is that the method of calculating the movement time between the actual operation time and the garage and the starting point of the vehicle calculated by the lower court as included in the Plaintiffs’ working hours was erroneous. However, this part of the Defendant’s ground of appeal is merely an error in the deliberation of the evidence belonging to the lower court’s exclusive right as a fact-finding court and it is difficult to view it as a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the record, the lower court did

B. The assertion as to whether or not work hours in the atmosphere of the vessel are included.

(1) Work hours refer to hours for which an employee provides labor under the employer’s direction and supervision. Recess hours refer to hours that an employee may freely use by harming the employer’s direction and supervision during work hours. Therefore, even if an employee does not actually engage in work during work hours or waiting hours, the hours during which the employee is actually under the employer’s direction and supervision without guaranteeing the free use of the employee’s work hours shall be deemed to be included in work hours. Determination is not made uniformly depending on the contents of labor contract, rules of employment and collective agreement applicable to the relevant work place, the details of work provided by the employee, the method of the employee’s interference or supervision, whether the employee has interfered with, and whether there are other circumstances to recognize the employer’s direction and supervision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da7454, Dec. 5, 2017).

(2) Examining the following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the waiting time of the Plaintiffs following the completion of bus operation (hereinafter referred to as “the waiting time of the instant case”) shall be deemed to include part of working hours, and thus, the entire waiting time of the instant case shall not be deemed to constitute working hours. ① The Defendant agreed upon the 13th of the agreed working days and the 17th of the agreed daily wage calculation base time of the agreed upon when concluding a wage agreement with V organization U branch, which is the 13th of the agreed working days, and the 13th of the agreed working hours of the bus at the time of the conclusion of the agreement with V organization U branch, taking into account the fact that part of the waiting time of the instant case, other than 13-15 hours at the time

The Plaintiffs asserted that the entire waiting time of this case falls under work hours, since they performed cleaning, vehicle inspection, and inspection during the waiting time of this case in addition to meal and rest. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiffs conducted cleaning, vehicle inspection, and inspection beyond the hours already reflected in work hours through the wage agreement during the waiting time of this case. ③ The mere fact that the Defendant ordered bus operators to move a vehicle during the waiting time of this case is insufficient to view that the Plaintiffs specifically directed and supervised the bus operators through regular direction on the business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

④ The Defendant’s rules of employment provide that the waiting time of the instant case ought to be set as recess hours so that workers may freely use it. Although the Defendant’s rules of employment provide that the leaving of a place of business may be regulated during the break time, it is insufficient to view that there was interference or supervision by the Defendant that could interfere with the Plaintiffs’ actual break during the waiting time.

⑤ Although the waiting time of the instant case was somewhat insufficient, it can be recognized that bus drivers had given advance notice on the bus list, it would be difficult for bus drivers to predict the waiting time between the next departure time and the next departure time, and there would be no big difficulties in using it as the time for rest. In fact, the Defendant’s workplace has a rest room in which the Plaintiffs may take rest.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court deemed that the entire waiting time of the instant case constituted working hours and calculated the Plaintiffs’ excessive working hours. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding working hours, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiffs’ final appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jae-young

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Cho Jae-sik in charge

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.