Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Residents' hours and an implied blanket wage agreement
Supreme Court, Sept. 11, 2025, 2019Da273803 (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: 임금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where doctors in training worked the hours recorded on their duty rosters, could part of those hours be excluded as education for board certification, and was an implied blanket wage agreement formed under which no overtime or night pay was owed for hours beyond 40 a week?
Holding
No. The Supreme Court accepted the appellate finding that the whole of the hours on the duty rosters counted as working time, that the portion serving as education needed for board certification did not change that, and that the salary paid was the price of 40 hours of work a week. It also accepted that an implied blanket wage agreement under which overtime and night pay beyond 40 hours were withheld was not made out. On the regular wages it held that treating fixedness as a conceptual indicator of regular wages was not proper, but that the conclusion that the listed allowances were regular wages was right, and it dismissed all the defendant's appeals.
Points at issue, verbatim
을 등이 제출한 근무시간표 기재와 같이 근무한 시간 전부가 근로시간에 해당하고, 그 일부가 전문의 자격 취득에 필요한 교육시간의 성격을 가진다고 하여 달리 볼 수 없으며, 갑 법인이 지급한 급여는 1주 40시간의 근로에 대한 대가이고, 위 급여 외에 1주 40시간을 초과하는 근로에 대한 연장근로수당이나 야간근로수당을 별도로 지급하지 않는다는 묵시적 포괄임금약정이 성립되었다고 보기 어렵다고 한 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
all of the hours worked by B and others as stated in the work schedules they submitted constitute working hours and cannot be viewed otherwise on the ground that some of them have the character of training hours required to obtain the qualification of a specialist, that the wages paid by corporation A constitute the consideration for work of 40 hours per week, and that it is difficult to find that a tacit comprehensive wage agreement was formed to the effect that, in addition to the above wages, overtime wages or night work wages for work exceeding 40 hours per week would not be separately paid, affirming the court below's determination to that effect
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
근로시간, 근로형태와 업무의 성질, 임금 산정의 단위, 단체협약과 취업규칙의 내용, 동종 사업장의 실태 등 여러 사정을 전체적·종합적으로 고려해서 구체적으로 판단해야 한다
Unofficial English translation
must be determined concretely by taking into account, in an overall and comprehensive manner, various circumstances such as working hours, the type of work and the nature of the work, the unit of wage calculation, the contents of collective agreements and rules of employment, and the actual conditions of similar workplaces
Factors
- 을 등이 제출한 근무시간표 기재와 같이 근무한 시간 전부가 근로시간에 해당하고
- 그 일부가 전문의 자격 취득에 필요한 교육시간의 성격을 가진다고 하여 달리 볼 수 없으며
- 갑 법인이 지급한 급여는 1주 40시간의 근로에 대한 대가이고
- 위 급여 외에 1주 40시간을 초과하는 근로에 대한 연장근로수당이나 야간근로수당을 별도로 지급하지 않는다는 묵시적 포괄임금약정이 성립되었다고 보기 어렵다고 한 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• all of the hours worked by B and others as stated in the work schedules they submitted constitute working hours and
• cannot be viewed otherwise on the ground that some of them have the character of training hours required to obtain the qualification of a specialist, that
• the wages paid by corporation A constitute the consideration for work of 40 hours per week, and that
• it is difficult to find that a tacit comprehensive wage agreement was formed to the effect that, in addition to the above wages, overtime wages or night work wages for work exceeding 40 hours per week would not be separately paid, affirming the judgment of the court below
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2016. 10. 13. 선고 2016도1060 판결(공2016하, 1722), 대법원 2022. 2. 10. 선고 2018다298904 판결(공2022상, 516)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1060 decided October 13, 2016 (Gong 2016 Ha, 1722), Supreme Court Decision 2018Da298904 decided February 10, 2022 (Gong 2022 Sang, 516)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2016. 10. 13. 선고 2016도1060 판결(공2016하, 1722), 대법원 2022. 2. 10. 선고 2018다298904 판결(공2022상, 516)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the salary was the price of 40 hours of work a week, what shows that an agreement objectively existed that no additional allowance of any kind would be paid beyond it?
A later decision revising what counts as a conceptual indicator of regular wages, or an amendment to Article 2(1)(v), Article 15, Article 17 or Article 56 of the Labor Standards Act, would require this entry to be read again. So would a new record quantifying the statutory wage for 40 hours against the salary actually paid to these doctors in training.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reads the test as a comprehensive weighing of circumstances, while the independent reads it as direct application to the facts of the roster and salary, so the framing of the standard differs.
위 급여 외에 1주 40시간을 초과하는 근로에 대한 연장근로수당이나 야간근로수당을 별도로 지급하지 않는다는 묵시적 포괄임금약정이 성립되었다고 보기 어렵다고 한 원심판단을 수긍한 사례Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the salary was the price of 40 hours of work a week, what shows that an agreement objectively existed that no additional allowance of any kind would be paid beyond it?” vs Independent “When, if ever, would residents' educational activities outside their scheduled clinical work qualify as compensable working time?”
The primary asks what objective evidence would show an agreement excluding all extra allowances, while the independent asks when educational activities outside scheduled clinical work become compensable working time.
을 등이 제출한 근무시간표 기재와 같이 근무한 시간 전부가 근로시간에 해당하고, 그 일부가 전문의 자격 취득에 필요한 교육시간의 성격을 가진다고 하여 달리 볼 수 없으며, 갑 법인이 지급한 급여는 1주 40시간의 근로에 대한 대가이고, 위 급여 외에 1주 40시간을 초과하는 근로에 대한 연장근로수당이나 야간근로수당을 별도로 지급하지 않는다는 묵시적 포괄임금약정이 성립되었다고 보기 어렵다고 한 원심판단을 수긍한 사례Raw 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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 20 August 2019 (2018Na2045580), held that the whole of the hours recorded on the duty rosters counted as working time, because the roster rules provided that there were no breaks during working hours, that treatment in the assigned area was the principle, and that unauthorised absence during working hours without reason would cost a month's OFF. It relied on medical records showing continuous treatment at intervals of minutes, the emergency department's openness around the clock, and the fact that time at academic events, overseas training, writing papers and preparing for examinations was not on the rosters. It held that the salary paid was the price of 40 hours of work a week and that no implied blanket wage agreement under which overtime and night pay beyond that were withheld was made out, and treated the duty allowances, performance pay and bonuses and the like as regular wages, rejecting the defendant's claim that they had to be set off.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the appellate court had not misunderstood the law on the calculation of working hours and their proof, and had neither misread the law on the interpretation of the employment contract and the formation of an implied blanket wage agreement nor failed to examine what it needed to. On the regular wages it remarked that treating fixedness as a conceptual indicator of regular wages was not proper, citing Supreme Court Decision 2020Da247190 (en banc), but held that the conclusion that the listed allowances were regular wages was nonetheless right, and dismissed all the appeals with the concurrence of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the collective agreement, the work rules or the employment contract expressly provides for a blanket wage, since the requirements the Court listed govern an agreement found without such wording.
- A case where working hours can be computed exactly and no regular overtime, night or holiday work is expected, since the Court required a substantive need for a blanket arrangement.
- Hours that the duty rosters do not include, such as academic events, overseas training, writing papers and preparing for examinations, which the court below had already excluded from working time.
Record verification notes
Set the fixed monthly salary against the statutory wage for 40 hours of work a week, since the appellate finding that the salary was the price of 40 hours carried the rejection of the implied agreement. Then look at the rosters themselves for the rules on breaks, treatment in the assigned area and unauthorised absence, and separate any hours not recorded on them. Finally, before relying on the regular wage holding, note the Court's own remark that fixedness is not a conceptual indicator of regular wages.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 포괄임금제에 관한 약정이 성립하였는지 판단하는 기준 및 이때 묵시적 합의에 의한 포괄임금약정이 성립하였다고 인정하기 위한 요건 [2] 갑 재단법인과 수련계약을 체결하고 갑 법인 산하 병원에서 전공의로 근무한 을 등이 갑 법인을 상대로 미지급 연장근로수당 및 야간근로수당의 지급을 구한 사안에서, 을 등이 제출한 근무시간표 기재와 같이 근무한 시간 전부가 근로시간에 해당하고, 그 일부가 전문의 자격 취득에 필요한 교육시간의 성격을 가진다고 하여 달리 볼 수 없으며, 갑 법인이 지급한 급여는 1주 40시간의 근로에 대한 대가이고, 위 급여 외에 1주 40시간을 초과하는 근로에 대한 연장근로수당이나 야간근로수당을 별도로 지급하지 않는다는 묵시적 포괄임금약정이 성립되었다고 보기 어렵다고 한 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criteria for determining whether an agreement concerning the comprehensive wage system has been formed, and the requirements for recognizing that a comprehensive wage agreement by tacit consent has been formed [2] A case in which B and others, who entered into a training contract with foundation corporation A and worked as residents at a hospital under corporation A, sought payment of unpaid overtime wages and night work wages from corporation A, where the court below's determination was affirmed to the effect that all of the hours worked by B and others as stated in the work schedules they submitted constitute working hours and cannot be viewed otherwise on the ground that some of them have the character of training hours required to obtain the qualification of a specialist, that the wages paid by corporation A constitute the consideration for work of 40 hours per week, and that it is difficult to find that a tacit comprehensive wage agreement was formed to the effect that, in addition to the above wages, overtime wages or night work wages for work exceeding 40 hours per week would not be separately paid
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
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 제15조, 제17조, 제56조 / [2] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제5호, 제15조, 제17조, 제56조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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