Whether a person who is in a supervisory or management position is entitled to receive overtime work or holiday work in an amount equivalent to ordinary wages (negative)

If a person who is in a position of supervision or management of a company and is in a position integrated with a corporate manager and has the right of free discretion to its own working hours, and is not subject to the provisions concerning working hours, recess, and holidays as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, he/she is not entitled to receive overtime work or holiday work in an amount equivalent to the ordinary price.

Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff 1 and 21 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellee and 3 others

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na4552 delivered on December 9, 1987

1. The part of the lower judgment’s payment of allowances for overtime work against Plaintiffs 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 19 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

2. The defendant's remaining appeals against the above plaintiffs and all remaining appeals against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal against the appeal dismissed by the defendant under the above 2 are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) On the third ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above employees' regular working hours are from 09:0 to 17:00 per day, and that the employees' regular working hours are from 09:0 to 14:00 per day, and that the employees' regular working hours are not subject to the above employees' daily working hours under the law, and that the employees' regular working hours are not subject to the above employees' regular working hours under the employer's law's order from March 27, 1982 to 12.14 of the same year, and the employees' regular working hours are not subject to the employer's duty under the employer's law's law's 6 hours per day, and the employees' regular working hours are not subject to the employer's duty under the employer's law's law's 1, 4, 10, 11, 16, and 19 are not subject to the employer's wage management's regular working hours under the employer's law's 1,000 per day.

However, as determined by the court below, if the above plaintiffs are in the position of supervising or managing the defendant company, and have the right of free discretion to work hours under the position that constitutes one of the corporate management entities, and the provisions on work hours, rest hours, and holidays stipulated in Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act are not applied, overtime work (including the remaining work hours in the law of the day) or holiday work, the above plaintiffs cannot be paid the work allowance of ordinary wages such as the original time.

The court below held that the defendant company is liable to pay wages at least for overtime work of the above plaintiffs at least for the above plaintiffs' overtime work is erroneous by misapprehending the interpretation of the above provision or the legal principles as to overtime work allowance. Therefore, the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are with merit.

(2) On the fourth ground for appeal:

The court below held that the plaintiff 3, the plaintiff 6, and the plaintiff 8 are merely the chief of the branch office or the third-class employee of the defendant company at the time of full-time overtime work at the original time and they cannot be viewed as a person who is in the position of the manager of the branch office. In light of the records, the court below's approval is just and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit. It is without merit.

(3) According to the records, while the defendant filed an appeal on the whole part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed that there was a submission of the appellate brief on the part of the plaintiffs' retirement allowance recognition (the plaintiffs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 20, 21, and 22 as the grounds of appeal No. 1 and No. 2. However, the plaintiffs' claim on this part was dismissed at the court below).

(4) Therefore, we reverse the part of the lower court’s payment of allowances for overtime work of Plaintiffs 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 19, and remand this part of the case to the lower court. The remainder of the Defendant’s appeal against the above Plaintiffs and the remaining appeals against the Plaintiffs are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)