A. Whether the contract for overseas employment between Korean nationals and the Labor Standards Act are applied

B. The meaning of basic wages under employment contract

A. As to the employment contract between the defendant company and Korean workers, the Korean Labor Standards Act applies even if the place of employment is monthly and South Korea.

B. In addition to an agreement through various fields such as working hours, wage payment method, place of employment, contract period, night-time allowance, and accident compensation in a labor contract, if the amount of wages under Article 7 is indicated in the attached Table, the amount of ordinary wages, extended allowances, holiday allowances, and monthly allowance is indicated in the attached Table, it shall be deemed that not only the basic wage but also various allowances are specified in advance, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary. Thus, the aggregate wage in the above wage statement shall be the basic wage.

Articles 18 and 19 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff 1 and 21 others

Defendant corporation

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap689) in the first instance trial

The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay 873,369 won to the plaintiff 1, 141,261 won to the plaintiff 2, 551, 561 won to the plaintiff 3, 658 won to the plaintiff 4, 649,860 won to the plaintiff 5, 647,010 won to the plaintiff 6, 446,29 won to the plaintiff 7, 717,979 won to the plaintiff 8, 969, 100 won to the plaintiff 2, 340, 340,042, 623, 819, and 12 to the plaintiff 2, 659, 67, 975 won to the plaintiff 1 to the plaintiff 2,615 won to the plaintiff 65,975 won to the plaintiff 2,975 won to the plaintiff 2,615 won to the plaintiff 2,975 won to the plaintiff 10 to the plaintiff 64,51965 won to the plaintiff 2.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution

Judgment identical with the cancellation of the original judgment and the purport of the claim

1. Applicable law;

The defendant's legal representative does not have any provision as to the labor provision in a foreign country, and thus, according to the territorialism, which is the principle of international law, only the foreign law which is the labor place. The legal nature of the Labor Standards Act also has the legal nature and the nature of public law. The provisions of the judicial nature must be designated as the governing law between the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Conflict of Laws Act, and the provisions of the public law are applied only within the territory of the Republic of Korea, so the application of the provisions of the law is excluded from the foreign country without a treaty or agreement that recognizes the application of the territorialism between the parties concerned. In this case, there was no designation as the governing law between the parties concerned, and there was no treaty or agreement that recognizes the application of the territorialism between the parties concerned between the Republic of Korea and the South Korea. However, the Korean Labor Standards Act argues that the Korean Labor Standards Act does not apply to the case where the workers under the employment contract between the Republic of Korea and the South Korea. Although it is apparent that the parties to the employment contract in this case are the citizens of the Republic of South Korea, it should be applied.

2. Terms of employment;

Since the Defendant was awarded a contract for maritime action, land lawsuit, and other work services for the U.S. military cargo in the South-North Republic of Korea, and thereafter resigned after the Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant during the period specified in attached Form B (B) entry into the occupational category, and the existence of the contract does not conflict with each other, and the testimony of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 (excluding the portion not acknowledged below) of the lower court’s witness 1 and Non-Party 2’s testimony in the employment contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, comprehensively, the Defendant agreed to allow the Plaintiffs to work on a holiday of 10 hours a day and 10 hours a week a week, taking into account the importance and special characteristics of the local military supply operations, and the actual Plaintiffs were to work on a holiday of 10 hours a day or 1300 hours a day a week a day and 20 hours a day a day a month or 100 hours a day a month from the following month to the end of every 260-month, and the Plaintiffs were to receive the wages by the end of each month.

3. Determination on the plaintiffs' claim for allowances

The Plaintiffs’ legal representative filed a claim against the Defendant on the ground that the monthly wage stated in the wage content table at the end of 1-1 to 22 (labor contract) was the basic wage, and the Plaintiffs did not receive overtime allowance, monthly or annual paid holiday allowances for more than 40 hours per month, on the ground that the monthly wage stated in the Plaintiffs’ wage content table was the basic wage.

(a) the basic salary;

According to the contents of the evidence No. 1 to No. 22, the plaintiffs and the defendant in the labor contract of this case provide that the contract of this case includes various fields such as working hours, payment method of wages, employment place, contract period, health welfare, accommodation, accident compensation, etc., and the wages in this Article 7 shall be as shown in the attached Table No. 1. As stated in the attached Table No. 7, it is stated at the end that the basic wages, other than ordinary wages, are not only basic wages, but also various allowances are determined in advance, and the total amount of the wages shall be determined in advance. Such statement cannot be seen as giving disadvantage to the workers even if there is no indication of the above additional rate, and as long as various working conditions as seen above are specified in the above labor contract, it cannot be seen as violating the purport of the provision of the Labor Standards Act, so the total amount of wages of the plaintiffs as stated in the above basic wages No. 1 to No. 3600, Dec. 31, 201.

B. Ordinary wage per hour

According to Article 24 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act and Article 31 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the current Labor Standards Act, which is the basis for calculating the overtime allowance and the monthly paid wage as claimed by the plaintiffs, with respect to the wage determined as monthly wage at the time when the labor contract in this case was in force, the amount calculated by dividing that amount by the number of contractual working hours per month is immediately ordinary wage, and the amount calculated by dividing that amount by the number of contractual working hours of the plaintiffs as the prescribed number of contractual working hours can be seen as being the ordinary wage, and 260 hours per month when the plaintiffs calculated the daily ordinary wage per hour according to each of the above wage contents, the amount in attached Form No. 1 (each ordinary wage ± 260 =1 hour ordinary wage) shall

C) Extended work allowances;

The facts that the plaintiffs worked for more than 40 hours per month are recognized as above. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs with ordinary wages and overtime allowances added to 50/100 pursuant to Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act. If we calculate the monthly amount by each of the plaintiffs, the amount of money listed in the attached Form 7 x 40 hours per hour x 150/100 (the ordinary wage per hour x 150/100) shall be calculated respectively.

(d) monthly and annual paid allowances;

근로기준법 47조 , 48조 의 규정에 의하면 사용자는 근로자에 대하여 월 1일의 유급휴가 및 1년간 개근한 근로자에 대하여 8일의 유급휴가를 주어야 하는 바 원고들이 근로기간중 유급휴일이나 유급휴가를 이용함이 없이 계속 근무한 사실은 앞에서 본 자와 같이 서로 다툼이 없으므로 피고는 원고들에 대하여 이 사건 근로계약이 존속중이던 당시 시행중이던 근로기준법시행령 24조의 3의 2항 및 현행 근로기준법시행령 33조 2항 의 규정에 의한 유급으로서 당연히 지급되는 임금과 당해 유금휴일의 근로에 대한 소정의 통상임금을 지급하여야 할 의무있다 하겠고 이를 원고들 별로 계산하여 보면 월의 월차유급휴가수당은 별지 ㉳항기재의 금원(1시간당 통상임금×월 하루휴일 근로시간인 10시간)이, 월의 연차유급휴가수당은 별지 ㉴항기재의 금원(1시간당 통상임금×10시간×8/12)이 산정된다.(다만, 원고 1, 2, 5, 21은 유급휴가를 받은 일이 있어 유급휴일 수당의 청구를 하지 아니하나 별지에서는 계상하였다)

4. Conclusion

그렇다면 피고가 원고들에게 지급하여야 할 기본임금외의 연장 근로수당, 월 및 연차유급수당은 별지 ㉲, ㉳, ㉴, 항 각 기재와 같은데 그 합계액 같은 ㉵항 금원과 기본임금과 합한 같은 ㉶항 금원을, 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 1호증의 1 내지 22의 각 기재내용(원고들 소송대리인은 위 호증들이 추후작성된 것이라고 다투나 이를 인정할만한 증거도 없다)에 의한 같은 ㉶항기재 실수령액에 각 비추어 보면 원고들이 피고로부터 같은 ㉸항 기재와 같이 초과하여 노임(기본임금과 제수당 합계금)을 수령한 사실이 인정되는 바이므로 위 인정된 수당의 지급이 없음을 내세운 원고들의 이 사건 청구는 그 이유없다 하여 이를 기각할 것인바 이와 결론을 같이 한 원판결은 정당하여 원고들의 항소는 그 이유없음에 돌아가므로 민사소송법 384조 에 의하여 이를 기각하고 항소비용의 부담에 관하여는 같은법 95조 , 93조 , 89조 를 적용하여 주문과 같이 판결한다.

Judges Jeon Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)