Whether the salting business falls under the fishery business under Article 49 (2) of the Labor Standards Act

The purpose of Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act is to say that there are many difficulties in applying the working hours, recesss and holidays system as stipulated in the above Act to the original project which is remarkably affected by the natural conditions such as the nature and form of the project, weather, season, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the project constitutes a fishery business under Article 49 subparagraph 2 of the above Act in light of the situation that it is difficult to continue work each day by setting a certain period of time after the natural conditions and after the natural development of the project, which is affected by the natural conditions.

Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff 1 and 23 others

Korea Salt Business Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana7091) in the first instance trial

The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to plaintiffs 1 and 2 26,230 won each gold 26,230 won, plaintiffs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 each gold 13,820 won for plaintiffs 1 and 2, and 13,886 won for plaintiffs 21, 22, 23, and 24 with 11,373 won each and 5 percent per annum from the following day to the completion of the provisional execution.

A judgment and a provisional execution judgment with the same content as that of the original judgment revoked and sought;

1. Facts that no dispute exists;

The fact that the plaintiffs were employed as a temporary salt unit for the 10.31th of April 1, 1962 to the Korea Resale Agency, respectively, and was dismissed on October 31 of the same year; again, the fact that the plaintiffs were employed as a temporary salt unit for the 19.31th of April 1, 1963 and was dismissed on October 31 of the same year; and the fact that the defendant succeeded to the rights and obligations arising from the national salt farm under the Korea Salt Company Act, which came into force on October 20 of 1963, as a whole, from the Korea Resale Agency.

2. Determination on the claim for holiday allowances, overtime allowances, and monthly allowances

As the plaintiffs' legal representative was employed as a temporary salt book and was dismissed while engaging in the business subject to the Labor Standards Act, as in the absence of dispute, the plaintiffs were dismissed, and they were employed without a holiday during their working period. Thus, they were employed more than the hours under Article 45 of the above Act, and they were employed without a leave under Article 46 of the above Act. Thus, they claim that the monthly allowance under Article 47 of the above Act should be paid to the plaintiffs, and the defendant's legal representative argued that the above provision is excluded from the application of the above provision, because they fall under the fishery business under Article 49 (2) of the above Act.

According to Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act, the provisions on hours of work and holidays stipulated in this Chapter (Chapter IV) and Chapter V do not apply to workers who fall under any of the following subparagraphs. The purpose of the above provisions is to stipulate that the Labor Standards Act is that the original contractor who is severely affected by natural conditions, such as climate, weather, and season, has considerable significance in applying the working hours, recess, and holiday system as stipulated in the above Act. Thus, the proposal is reasonable in light of the situation that the natural conditions are determined after and after the ceiling and the work cannot be continued on a daily basis, and that the plaintiff's claim for allowances cannot be excluded from the application of Article 49 subparagraph 2 of the above Act, since it is reasonable to interpret the above provisions as fisheries business under Article 49 subparagraph 2 of the above Act, since the original contractor who is severely affected by natural conditions such as weather, weather, and season, and all of the plaintiffs' claims for allowances and allowances cannot be excluded from the application of the above provisions.

3. Judgment on the claim for advance notice of dismissal allowance

The plaintiffs' attorney asserts that the plaintiffs' attorney was dismissed without the plaintiffs' prior notice of dismissal, and that the plaintiffs' attorney paid prior notice of dismissal under Article 27-2 of the above Act.

I think, the dismissal under Article 27-2 of the above Act refers to the case of termination of a labor contract in the future by only the unilateral expression of intent of the employer. If an employee and an employer have determined the period in the contract to conclude a labor contract, the dismissal under the meaning of confirming the termination of the contract upon the expiration of the term shall be included in the scope of dismissal as stipulated in the above provision. Thus, according to the facts that the plaintiffs were employed as temporary salt from the beginning and the purport of the parties' arguments, as alleged by the plaintiffs' legal representative, the plaintiffs are the relations between April and October of each year, which are known to the fact that the working period of pro-Japanese was renewed and that only is employed for the above period, and the plaintiffs were known to the fact that the work period of pro-Japanese was known to the fact that it was employed for the above period from April to October of each year, and the plaintiffs' claim for pre-determination of dismissal under the premise that it was a unilateral expression of intent of the employer is groundless, even if it was based on all materials of the plaintiffs' legal representative.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in the principal lawsuit are all dismissed. Since the plaintiffs' appeals against the original judgment that share the same result are without merit, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Sick-soo (Presiding Judge)