[Plaintiffs, Appellees] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Attorneys Kim Geon-woo and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiffs)
[Defendant, Appellant] Anyang City (Attorney Lee Won-gu, Counsel for the defendant)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na85903 dated October 19, 2012
[Order]
Among the part of the judgment below unfavorable to the Defendant, the part concerning the claim for extended-work premium wages for holiday work is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (including the supplementary brief on grounds of appeal filed after the deadline for submission of the grounds of appeal, to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal) are examined as follows.
1. Progress of the Case
A. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant and worked as sanitation workers.
B. Pursuant to the collective agreement concluded with the labor union to which the Plaintiffs belonged, the Defendant implemented the 40-hour workweek system from July 1, 2005, designating Saturdays and Sundays as paid holidays. From June 2006 to June 2008, the Plaintiffs worked on holidays (Saturdays and Sundays) in excess of the 40-hour workweek, as indicated in the column "Holiday Work Hours Concurrent with Overtime Work Hours" in Attachment List 2 of the judgment below. With respect to the Plaintiffs' holiday work hours concurrent with overtime work hours, the Defendant did not calculate overtime allowances but paid only holiday work allowances.
C. The Plaintiffs claimed unpaid overtime allowances, holiday work allowances, annual paid leave allowances, etc., calculated on the basis of ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), and asserted that for holiday work, in addition to holiday work allowances, overtime allowances should also be paid cumulatively.
D. The court below accepted the Plaintiffs' argument on this point and rendered a judgment partially in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant, dissatisfied with this, filed the final appeal.
2. Issues and Determination
A. The core issue in this case is whether, under the former Labor Standards Act (as amended by Act No. 15513 on March 20, 2018, prior to such amendment, hereinafter the "former Labor Standards Act"; the version after such amendment is referred to as the "amended Labor Standards Act"; and when referring to both collectively, simply the "Labor Standards Act"), where work is performed on a holiday in excess of the 40-hour standard workweek per week, such work should be regarded as extended work, thereby requiring the cumulative payment of both the premium wage for extended work and the premium wage for holiday work.
B. Considering comprehensively the content and regulatory structure of Article 50, Paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 53, Paragraph 1, Article 55, and Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법 시행령), the history of enactment and amendment of the former Labor Standards Act and the legislative intent and purpose discernible therefrom, the perceptions of the parties to labor relations and existing labor practices, and the supplementary provisions of the amended Labor Standards Act, it must be held that, absent special circumstances, the premium wage for holiday work and the premium wage for extended work cannot be paid cumulatively (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da112391 delivered on June 21, 2018).
C. Nevertheless, the court below determined that the premium wage for holiday work and the premium wage for extended work must be paid cumulatively. Such determination by the court below contains an error of misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the payment of premium wages for holiday work and extended work under the former Labor Standards Act, which affected the judgment.
3. Conclusion
Among the part of the judgment below unfavorable to the Defendant, the part concerning the claim for extended-work premium wages for holiday work is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further examination and determination, and it is so ordered as stated in the Order.
Justice Kim Chang-seok (Presiding Justice), Justice Cho Hee-dae, Justice Kim Jae-hyeong (Justice in Charge), Justice Min Yu-sook