A. The validity of wage payment contract under the so-called comprehensive wage system

(b) The case holding that it does not constitute a comprehensive wage system under the operational regulations of the local medical insurance association;

(c) A case denying the validity of the operational regulations of a regional medical insurance association in lieu of annual or monthly leave allowances as a full-time allowance;

A. Where a wage payment contract was concluded based on the so-called comprehensive wage system that the sum of the allowances for overtime work, etc. is determined as monthly wage or daily wage without calculating the basic wage in consideration of working hours, the form of work, the nature of work, etc. or inspiring employees’ convenience in calculation and their desire to work, or that a certain amount is paid as an allowance, it shall not be deemed null and void if it is deemed that there is no disadvantage to the worker and it is justifiable in light of all the circumstances.

B. The case holding that it does not constitute a comprehensive wage system under the operational regulations of the regional medical insurance association.

(c) A case denying the validity of the operational regulations of a regional medical insurance association in lieu of annual or monthly leave allowances as a full-time allowance;

(a)Article 46(a) of the Labor Standards Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu6934 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 201) 89Meu32118 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1450) (Gong1992, 1161) 91Da30828 delivered on February 28, 1992 (Gong192, 1161). Supreme Court Decision 94Da18553 delivered on June 29, 195 (Gong195Ha, 2516)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14484 decided May 1, 201

Busan District Court Decision 94Na6403 delivered on October 7, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to Articles 22 and 46 through 48 of the Labor Standards Act, in a case where an employer concludes a labor contract, he/she shall, in principle, determine the basic wages of the employee and pay them by adding all allowances, such as overtime hours, holidays, night work allowances, etc., based on such determination. However, without calculating the basic wages in advance, he/she shall determine the total amount of allowances for overtime work, etc. as monthly pay or daily pay, or where he/she concludes a wage payment contract based on the so-called comprehensive wage system with a monthly fixed amount as an allowance, without calculating the basic wages in consideration of working hours, forms of work and the nature of work, etc. or inspiring the employee’s desire to work, it shall not be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da3120, Dec. 28, 1982; 90Meu6934, Nov. 27, 190; 208Da3898, Apr. 23, 1991).

However, according to the regulations on the operation of the regional medical insurance association of the defendant union (hereinafter referred to as the "Operational Rules"), the remuneration is defined as "the sum of basic salary and other various kinds of allowances" (Article 3 subparagraph 6, but Article 98 (1) was added to the bonus following the revision of the Operational Rules on April 19, 190). However, the basic salary is defined as the sum of the principal salary and the position allowances (Article 3 subparagraph 9), while the principal salary is defined as the sum of the principal salary and the position allowances (Article 3 subparagraph 7, subparagraph 8 of Article 3), the duty allowance is defined as the sum of the basic salary (Article 3 subparagraph 7, and Article 3). In addition, the duty allowance is defined as the sum of the allowances paid in addition to the basic salary (Article 3 subparagraph 7, subparagraph 8 of the same Article). Thus, the payment of overtime work allowance, holiday allowance allowance, etc. under the Operational Rules of the defendant union is not included in the so-called wage system, or it is not included in the records.

Ultimately, there is no reason to discuss the premise that the labor contract of the plaintiff and the designated parties constitutes the so-called comprehensive wage system.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The fixed-time allowance prescribed by the operational regulations of the defendant union is paid to all persons who meet the requirements for payment under Article 106 (1) of the operational regulations regardless of whether a worker has used a monthly paid leave. In addition, in light of the provisions under Article 106 (2) of the operational regulations for a person who has been subject to a reduction of salary or higher or a person who has been released from his position, the fixed-time paid allowance is entirely different from the purpose or nature of the payment, and the payment requirement of the monthly paid leave allowance is entirely different from the annual and monthly paid leave allowance under the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, if a worker continued to work without using it within the statutory period even after he has acquired the right of annual and monthly paid leave under the Labor Standards Act, the defendant union shall be paid the annual and monthly paid leave allowance under the Labor Standards Act, regardless of whether he has received the fixed-time

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance that held that the provisions of Article 106 (3) of the Operational Regulations (amended on April 19, 190) that provide that the annual and monthly leave allowances paid pursuant to Articles 47 and 48 of the Labor Standards Act shall be substituted by the main allowance (regular allowances) shall not be effective, and that the defendant shall pay the annual and monthly leave allowances pursuant to the Labor Standards Act based on ordinary wages, is justified.

There is no reason to challenge this issue.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)