logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2011.04.15 2010나7746
임금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, parts of the judgment against plaintiffs 1 through 29, 35, 49 through 73 shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the judgment on this part of this Court’s basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination as to the scope of ordinary wages

A. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the additional continuous service charges for the Plaintiff’s ordinary workers, the major holiday cost, the additional continuous service charges for the Plaintiff’s commercial workers, the fixed school meal cost, the transportation subsidy, the amount of salary, the sanitation allowance, and the holiday leave cost are included in the scope of ordinary wages under each Labor Standards Act.

B. The defendant asserts to the purport that the plaintiffs' wage increase through the ordinary wage lawsuit is an act violating the good faith principle formed between the labor and management, since the current situation where the wages and working conditions of ordinary workers or street cleaners are significantly improved.

On the other hand, the principle of good faith is an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship should not exercise the right or perform the duty in a way that is contrary to equity or less trust, taking into account the other party’s interest, and has provided good faith to the other party to deny the exercise of the right on the ground that it violates the principle of good faith.

In light of the concept of justice, it is difficult to deem that the principle of trust and good faith has been formed between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant that the Plaintiffs would not make a wage person through ordinary wage litigation, and the Plaintiffs’ filing of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant in order to receive additional allowances and retirement allowances as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act is against the principle of trust and good faith.

arrow