[Wage Claim Lawsuit Defense] Daeryun Law Firm Defends a Wage Claim Lawsuit With a Favorable Judgment

CONTENTS

1. The Client Who Came to Daeryun for the Defense of a Wage Claim Lawsuit
- - Case-Related Statutes Reviewed With Daeryun Law Firm
2. Wage Claim Lawsuit, Daeryun Law Firm's Pleadings
3. The Wage Claim Lawsuit Defended by Daeryun Law Firm

1. The Client Who Came to Daeryun for the Defense of a Wage Claim Lawsuit

The client who came to Daeryun Law Firm for the defense of a wage claim lawsuit was the representative director of D, a large feed company, and a former employee who had left the company filed a wage claim lawsuit, so a defense against it was needed.

The former employee, who was a security guard, filed a wage claim lawsuit, claiming that D had not paid wages for additional work performed, overtime allowances, holiday work allowances, and the like during the period of employment.

The client came to Daeryun Law Firm, which has extensive experience with the Labor Standards Act and wage claim lawsuits, and entrusted the case to it.

Case-Related Statutes Reviewed With Daeryun Law Firm

Labor Standards Act Article 50 (Working Hours)

(1) Working hours per week shall not exceed 40 hours, excluding break time.

(2) Working hours per day shall not exceed 8 hours, excluding break time.

(3) Where working hours are calculated under paragraphs (1) and (2), waiting time during which the worker is under the direction and supervision of the employer for the work shall be regarded as working hours.

Labor Standards Act Article 59 (Special Cases concerning Working Hours and Break Time)

(1) «Statistics Act» Article 22 (1), where, for any business falling under one of the following subparagraphs among the medium or minor categories of the standard classification of industries publicly notified by the Commissioner of Statistics Korea, the employer reaches a written agreement with the workers' representative, the employer may have workers perform extended work exceeding the 12 hours per week under Article 53 (1) or may change the break time under Article 54.

1. Land transportation and pipeline transportation. However, «Passenger Transport Service Act» Article 3 (1) 1, route passenger motor transportation business is excluded.

2. Water transportation business

3. Air transportation business

4. Other transportation-related service business

5. Health care business

(2) In the case of paragraph (1), the employer shall give the worker a continuous rest period of not less than 11 hours from the end of one workday to the start of the next workday.

Labor Standards Act Article 63 (Exclusion from Application)

The provisions concerning working hours, break time, and holidays prescribed in this Chapter and Chapter 5 shall not apply to a worker falling under any one of the following subparagraphs.

1. Cultivation and reclamation of land, the planting, growing, and gathering of plants, and other agriculture and forestry business

2. The raising of animals, the gathering, capturing, and farming of marine animals and plants, and other livestock, sericulture, and fisheries business

3. A person engaged in surveillance or intermittent work for whom the employer has obtained the approval of the Minister of Employment and Labor

4. Presidential DecreeA worker engaged in the work prescribed thereby

2. Wage Claim Lawsuit, Daeryun Law Firm's Pleadings

Daeryun Law Firm carefully reviewed the matters concerning the wage claim lawsuit together with the client and prepared a defense.

First, the former employee claimed that there had been additional work performed due to a change in working hours, but this was a matter in which the security guards of the client's company had requested a change in working hours so that they could use longer leave on the ground that the work was light, and the company accepted that request to change the working hours.

The client's company accepted the request for the welfare of the employees despite the increase in labor costs caused by the change in working hours, and it was confirmed that there was no additional work performed beyond the change in working hours.

In addition, the former employee demanded overtime allowances and holiday work allowances.

The client's company had obtained approval for exclusion from application from the chairperson of the labor relations commission with respect to a person engaged in security and driving work, and on the basis of Article 63, subparagraph 3 of the Labor Standards Act, it was established that the client had no obligation to pay overtime allowances and holiday work allowances.

3. The Wage Claim Lawsuit Defended by Daeryun Law Firm

Accepting the pleadings of Daeryun Law Firm, the court judged on this wage claim lawsuit as follows.

▶ The evidence submitted by the plaintiff (the former employee) alone makes it difficult to find that the plaintiff performed additional work.

▶ In this case, the provisions concerning holidays prescribed in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of the Labor Standards Act do not apply, so the plaintiff's claim, which is premised on a premium rate for holiday working hours and paid holidays and the like, is without merit.

▶ The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

▶ The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

Daeryun Law Firm provides clear answers to labor and industrial accident cases in which companies and workers are sharply opposed, such as the wage claim lawsuit above.

Please entrust your case to Daeryun Law Firm, which works toward results that satisfy clients through creative and multidimensional case handling.

This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.