1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an incorporated foundation established and operated for the purpose of promoting E-Si culture and arts and promoting citizens' cultural welfare as prescribed by the Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the D Foundation.

B. Defendant B is a person who retired while serving as an employee of each Plaintiff’s foundation from October 4, 2011 to June 7, 2017; Defendant C is a person who retired after serving as an employee of each Plaintiff’s foundation from June 20, 2016 to June 19, 2017.

C. On May 19, 2017, Defendant C was notified by the Plaintiff on June 19, 2017 that it is scheduled to terminate the labor contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 12 evidence (including paper numbers), Eul 1 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The parties’ assertion 1) The overtime work allowance against the Plaintiff Defendants ought to be calculated in accordance with the Labor Standards Act. According to the Plaintiff’s remuneration provision, the overtime work allowance against the Defendants should be paid only for the overtime work hours actually implemented by the order of service, but the basic hours (10 hours per month) was added up and paid without justifiable grounds by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions concerning local public officials’ allowances, etc. Therefore, the Defendants should return the overtime work allowance (10 hours per month from January to December 3, 2016, to December 3, 143, 400, Defendant C: 200 won from June 1, 2016 to December 1, 2016, to December 1, 2016, 2016) to the Defendants in such a way that the overtime work allowance against the Defendants should be calculated in accordance with the Labor Standards Act without justifiable grounds.2)

However, the Plaintiff had different accounting formula from the Labor Standards Act, and applied not only the Labor Standards Act, but also the provisions against public officials in the calculation method of the total hours of overtime work, night work and holiday work.

In other words, the plaintiff recognized the overtime work allowance up to 40 hours a month, did not apply the night and holiday work hours, and added up the unit after leaving the unit.