Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Overtime allowance for public officials and a pay guideline's binding force
Supreme Court, Oct. 31, 2019, 2013Du5845 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 수당금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a local public official in an operational agency claim the overtime allowance for the hours actually worked under a work order, even where the pay guideline caps the monthly payable hours within the budget or the local government has budgeted less than the hours actually worked, and does the guideline barring concurrent payment of overtime and holiday allowance have the force of a legal command ordinance?
Holding
The Court answered yes in principle. A local public official under Article 5 of the Local Public Officials Service Regulation may claim the overtime allowance for the hours actually worked under a work order, once the statutory overtime, night and holiday allowances have been appropriated in the budget; neither a guideline fixing the monthly payable hours 'within the budget' nor a budget prepared below the hours actually worked alters that. The guideline barring concurrent payment of overtime and holiday allowance for the same hours is within the delegation in Article 15 of the former Decree on Allowances etc. for Local Public Officials, and so has the force of a legal command ordinance; the remaining appeal grounds disclosed no error.
Points at issue, verbatim
현업공무원 등의 지방공무원은 근무명령에 의하여 실제로 초과근무한 시간에 해당하는 초과근무수당의 지급을 구할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether local public officials, such as those engaged in field duties, may claim payment of overtime pay corresponding to the hours of overtime actually worked pursuant to a work order (in principle, affirmative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 피고들 패소 부분 중 휴일근무수당이 지급된 휴일근무시간에 대한 시간외근무수당 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below in which the defendants lost, concerning the claim for overtime pay for the holiday working hours for which holiday work allowance was paid, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
당해 법령 규정의 목적과 규정 내용, 규정의 체계, 다른 규정과의 관계 등을 종합적으로 살펴 판단하여야 하는데
Unofficial English translation
a determination must be made by comprehensively examining the purpose and content of the relevant statutory provision, the system of the provision, the relationship with other provisions, and the like,
Factors
- 구 지방공무원보수업무 등 처리지침이 현업대상자에 대하여 시간외근무수당의 월 지급시간을 ‘예산의 범위 내’로 정하도록 규정하거나, 지방자치단체가 예산의 편성지침에 의하여 실제 근무한 초과근로시간에 미달되도록 초과근무수당을 예산에 편성한 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
- 법령의 규정이 특정 행정기관에 그 법령 내용의 구체적 사항을 정할 수 있는 권한을 부여하면서 권한 행사의 절차나 방법을 특정하고 있지 않아 수임행정기관이 행정규칙의 형식으로 그 법령의 내용이 될 사항을 구체적으로 정한 경우, 그 행정규칙은 대외적 구속력이 있는 법규명령으로서의 효력을 가지는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
- 특정 행정규칙이 위임의 한계를 준수하고 있는지 판단하는 방법
- 근로계약에서 정한 휴식시간이나 수면시간이 근로시간에 속하는지 휴게시간에 속하는지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
• Whether the same applies even where the former Guidelines on Handling of Remuneration Affairs for Local Public Officials, etc. provided that the monthly hours for payment of overtime pay for persons subject to field duties be set as being 'within the scope of the budget,' or where a local government appropriated overtime pay in its budget at a level falling short of the overtime hours actually worked in accordance with budgetary appropriation guidelines (affirmative)
• Where a provision of a statute or regulation grants a specific administrative agency the authority to determine specific matters of the content of the statute or regulation without specifying the procedure or method of exercising that authority, and the delegated administrative agency has specifically determined the matters that are to become the content of the statute or regulation in the form of an administrative rule, whether such administrative rule has the effect of delegated legislation having external binding force (in principle, affirmative)
• The method of determining whether a specific administrative rule observes the limits of the delegation
• The method of determining whether the rest time or sleeping time stipulated in an employment contract falls within working hours or within rest periods
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2005다9227 판결, 대법원 2016. 8. 25. 선고 2013두14610 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da9227 decided September 10, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2013Du14610 decided August 25, 2016; etc.
Decisions referred to
[1][2][3] 대법원 2019. 10. 17. 선고 2014두3020, 3037 판결(공2019하, 2119) / [1] 대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2005다9227 판결(공2009하, 1595), 대법원 2016. 8. 25. 선고 2013두14610 판결(공2016하, 1430) / [2] 대법원 2008. 3. 27. 선고 2006두3742, 3759 판결(공2008상, 623), 대법원 2011. 10. 27. 선고 2011두15640 판결(공2011하, 2459), 대법원 2016. 8. 17. 선고 2015두51132 판결(공2016하, 1360) / [3] 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2014다74254 판결(공2018상, 30)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a local government's budget appropriates no overtime allowance at all, what remedy remains for the hours an official worked under a work order?
The remand judgment on whether the guideline may bar concurrent payment of overtime and holiday allowance for the same hours will show how the limit of the delegation is applied in practice. An amendment to Article 15 or Article 17 of the former Decree on Allowances etc. for Local Public Officials, or a later decision on the external binding force of administrative rules, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reading describes the standard as a comprehensive consideration of several factors, while the independent reading describes it as setting out requirements, so the form of the standard differs.
현업공무원 등의 지방공무원은 근무명령에 의하여 실제로 초과근무한 시간에 해당하는 초과근무수당의 지급을 구할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Gwangju High Court, in its judgment of 23 January 2013 (2012Nu661), held that the defendants had to pay the plaintiffs the proper overtime allowance for the overtime hours actually worked, regardless of the range budgeted. On the concurrent payment point it read the allowance regulation as delegating only the procedural matters needed for the standard and method of payment, so the guideline limiting concurrent payment lacked legal character, and it granted the claim for overtime allowance on the holiday hours for which holiday allowance had been paid.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found the main conclusion sound, though some of the reasoning was unfit, and no error in treating the night-standby sleep and meal hours as working time, in rejecting the special-rate argument, in the off-day work finding and in treating rotation rest days as working time. On concurrent payment it held that the regulation, which computes the overtime, night and holiday allowances on different units and rates, does not contemplate double payment, so the guideline merely makes explicit what the regulation permits and is within the delegation; the court below had misread Articles 15(2) and 17(2) and the guideline's force as a legal command ordinance. That part was reversed and remanded, and the plaintiffs' appeal and the defendants' remaining appeals were all dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the statutory overtime allowance has not been appropriated in the budget at all, since the Court's rule attaches only once the allowance 'has been appropriated in the budget'.
- Where a rest or sleep period in fact leaves the official free to use the time and free from the direction and supervision of a superior, so that it is break time rather than working time.
- Where an administrative rule goes beyond restating what the statute permits or concretising it, so that it exceeds the delegation.
Record verification notes
Set each hour claimed against the budget line for overtime, night and holiday allowance and against the hours the guideline recognises, since the rule begins once the allowance is appropriated. Test the guideline against Article 15 and Article 17 of the former Decree on Allowances etc. for Local Public Officials to see whether it merely makes explicit what the Decree permits, keeping holiday hours where holiday allowance was paid in a separate column, because that is the part reversed here. For the working-time question, gather the employment rules, the collective agreement and the evidence on supervision during night standby and meals.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 현업공무원 등의 지방공무원은 근무명령에 의하여 실제로 초과근무한 시간에 해당하는 초과근무수당의 지급을 구할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극) 및 구 지방공무원보수업무 등 처리지침이 현업대상자에 대하여 시간외근무수당의 월 지급시간을 ‘예산의 범위 내’로 정하도록 규정하거나, 지방자치단체가 예산의 편성지침에 의하여 실제 근무한 초과근로시간에 미달되도록 초과근무수당을 예산에 편성한 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극) [2] 법령의 규정이 특정 행정기관에 그 법령 내용의 구체적 사항을 정할 수 있는 권한을 부여하면서 권한 행사의 절차나 방법을 특정하고 있지 않아 수임행정기관이 행정규칙의 형식으로 그 법령의 내용이 될 사항을 구체적으로 정한 경우, 그 행정규칙은 대외적 구속력이 있는 법규명령으로서의 효력을 가지는지 여부(원칙적 적극) 및 이 경우 특정 행정규칙이 위임의 한계를 준수하고 있는지 판단하는 방법 [3] 근로시간과 휴게시간의 의미 및 근로계약에서 정한 휴식시간이나 수면시간이 근로시간에 속하는지 휴게시간에 속하는지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether local public officials, such as those engaged in field duties, may claim payment of overtime pay corresponding to the hours of overtime actually worked pursuant to a work order (in principle, affirmative), and whether the same applies even where the former Guidelines on Handling of Remuneration Affairs for Local Public Officials, etc. provided that the monthly hours for payment of overtime pay for persons subject to field duties be set as being 'within the scope of the budget,' or where a local government appropriated overtime pay in its budget at a level falling short of the overtime hours actually worked in accordance with budgetary appropriation guidelines (affirmative) [2] Where a provision of a statute or regulation grants a specific administrative agency the authority to determine specific matters of the content of the statute or regulation without specifying the procedure or method of exercising that authority, and the delegated administrative agency has specifically determined the matters that are to become the content of the statute or regulation in the form of an administrative rule, whether such administrative rule has the effect of delegated legislation having external binding force (in principle, affirmative), and, in such case, the method of determining whether a specific administrative rule observes the limits of the delegation [3] The meanings of working hours and rest periods, and the method of determining whether the rest time or sleeping time stipulated in an employment contract falls within working hours or within rest periods
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결의 피고들 패소 부분 중 휴일근무수당이 지급된 휴일근무시간에 대한 시간외근무수당 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다. 원고들의 상고 및 피고들의 나머지 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below in which the defendants lost, concerning the claim for overtime pay for the holiday working hours for which holiday work allowance was paid, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. All final appeals of the plaintiffs and the remaining final appeals of the defendants are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 지방공무원법(2007. 4. 27. 법률 제8396호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제44조 제3항(현행 제44조 제4항 참조), 제45조 제1항, 지방공무원 보수규정 제30조, 구 지방공무원수당 등에 관한 규정(2011. 1. 10. 대통령령 제22620호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제15조, 제16조, 제17조, 구 지방재정법(2011. 8. 4. 법률 제10991호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제36조 제1항, 지방공무원 복무규정 제5조 [2] 헌법 제95조 [3] 근로기준법 제50조, 제54조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger