Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Hours beyond the monthly scheduled working days and the minimum wage
Supreme Court, Oct. 8, 2024, 2021Da304779 (judgment)
Case name: 임금·사납금청구[택시운전근로자들이 만근일을 초과하여 근무한 날의 근로시간에 대해서도 최저임금이 지급되어야 하는지 여부가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
For a driver in a general taxi transport business, do hours worked on a day that is not one of the monthly scheduled working days count as hours for which at least the minimum wage must be paid (in principle, no)?
Holding
They do not, unless there are special circumstances. For drivers in a general taxi transport business, Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act and Article 5-2 proviso (i) of the former Enforcement Decree exclude from the comparison wages any wage paid for anything other than the scheduled working hours or the scheduled working days, and Article 5(1)(iii) of that Decree requires monthly comparison wages to be divided by the number of scheduled working hours in a month. So the hours a driver works beyond the monthly full-attendance days agreed in the wage agreement fall outside the hours for which at least the minimum wage must be paid.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
소정의 근로일에 해당하지 않는 날에 근로자가 근로하였더라도 그 근로한 시간은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 최저임금액 이상의 임금을 지급해야 하는 시간에 포함되지 않는다고 해석함이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Even if an employee has worked on a day that does not correspond to a prescribed working day, it is reasonable to interpret that those hours worked are not, absent special circumstances, included in the hours for which wages of not less than the minimum wage must be paid.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이러한 최저임금법령의 규정 내용과 취지를 고려하면, 소정의 근로일에 해당하지 않는 날에 근로자가 근로하였더라도 그 근로한 시간은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 최저임금액 이상의 임금을 지급해야 하는 시간에 포함되지 않는다고 해석함이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Considering the content and purport of the provisions of the Minimum Wage Act and its subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to interpret that even if an employee has worked on a day that does not correspond to a prescribed working day, those hours worked are not, absent special circumstances, included in the hours for which wages of not less than the minimum wage must be paid.
Factors
- 소정근로시간 또는 소정의 근로일에 대하여 지급하는 임금 외의 임금을 산입하지 아니한다고 정한다
- 비교대상 임금 중 월 단위로 지급된 임금을 ‘1개월의 소정근로시간 수’로 나누어 시간에 대한 임금으로 환산하도록 정한다
- 소정의 근로일에 해당하지 않는 날에 근로자가 근로하였더라도
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한
Unofficial English translation
• provides that wages other than those paid for prescribed working hours or prescribed working days shall not be included in the calculation
• provides that wages paid on a monthly basis among the wages subject to comparison shall be divided by the "number of prescribed working hours in one month" and converted into wages per hour
• even if an employee has worked on a day that does not correspond to a prescribed working day,
• absent special circumstances
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2023. 11. 2. 선고 2018도965 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Do965 decided November 2, 2023
Decisions referred to
대법원 2023. 11. 2. 선고 2018도965 판결, 대법원 2024. 7. 25. 선고 2023다223744, 223751 판결(공2024하, 1471)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would make hours worked beyond the monthly scheduled working days count as hours for which at least the minimum wage must be paid?
The remand judgment of the Suwon District Court will show how the minimum wage shortfall, and with it the scope of the claim including severance pay, is recalculated once the hours beyond the monthly full-attendance days are excluded. Any amendment to Article 5-3 of the Enforcement Decree, or a later decision departing from Supreme Court Decision 2018Do965 or Supreme Court Decision 2023Da223744, 2023Da223751, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
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 Suwon District Court, in its judgment of 26 November 2021 (2021Na53535, 2021Na53542), held that the agreements on reducing the scheduled working hours concluded after the 2010 wage agreement were void as evasive acts designed to escape the mandatory Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, and that the minimum wage shortfall had to be calculated on the scheduled working hours set in the 2010 wage agreement. It included in the minimum wage payment hours the hours the plaintiffs, former taxi drivers, worked beyond the monthly full-attendance days, and calculated the shortfall on the whole of each month's working days. It also rejected the defendant's defence of breach of good faith and its contingent counterclaim premised on an obligation to pay additional takings.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in that holding on the first and second grounds of appeal. On the third ground it held that the 2010 wage agreement set the monthly full-attendance days in order to fix the monthly scheduled working days, so the hours worked beyond those days were likely to fall outside the minimum wage payment hours, and that the court below had misapprehended the method of calculating the minimum wage in a way that affected the judgment. It found no error in the rejection of the good faith defence and the contingent counterclaim. It reversed the whole of the main claim so that the scope of the claim, including severance pay, could be recalculated on remand, and also reversed the contingent counterclaim, which presupposed that the main claim would be granted, for the sake of a single conclusive determination.
Distinguishing conditions
- Hours worked beyond the monthly scheduled working days where special circumstances require them to count as hours for which at least the minimum wage must be paid.
- A monthly day-count clause that does not serve to fix the monthly scheduled working days, since the Court read the full-attendance days in the 2010 wage agreement in that way.
- Pay calculation for a worker who is not engaged in driving work at a general taxi transport business, where Article 5-2 proviso (i) of the former Enforcement Decree does not govern.
Record verification notes
Set the wage agreement and the joint collective wage agreement side by side and confirm what the day-count clause was agreed to do, since the exclusion turns on those days being the monthly scheduled working days. Then check which version of the Enforcement Decree governs: the former Article 5(1)(iii) divides by the scheduled hours in a month, while the version in force from 1 January 2019 divides by those hours plus the weekly holiday hours. Keep the void-agreement holding apart, since the Supreme Court left it undisturbed.
From the official text
Points at issue
근로자가 소정의 근로일에 해당하지 않는 날에 근로한 경우, 그 근로한 시간이 최저임금액 이상의 임금을 지급해야 하는 시간에 포함되는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the hours an employee works on a day that does not correspond to a prescribed working day are included in the hours for which wages of not less than the minimum wage must be paid (negative as a rule)
Summary of the holding
최저임금법 제6조 제5항, 구 최저임금법 시행령(2018. 12. 31. 대통령령 제29469호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제5조의2 단서 제1호는 일반택시운송사업에서 운전업무에 종사하는 근로자의 최저임금에 산입되는 임금(최저임금의 적용을 위한 임금으로서 이하 ‘비교대상 임금’이라 한다)의 범위에 관하여 소정근로시간 또는 소정의 근로일에 대하여 지급하는 임금 외의 임금을 산입하지 아니한다고 정한다. 그리고 구 최저임금법 시행령 제5조 제1항 제3호는 비교대상 임금 중 월 단위로 지급된 임금을 ‘1개월의 소정근로시간 수’로 나누어 시간에 대한 임금으로 환산하도록 정한다[최저임금법 시행령(2018. 12. 31. 대통령령 제29469호로 개정되어 2019. 1. 1.부터 시행된 것) 제5조의3 단서 제1호, 제5조 제1항 제3호의 내용도 이와 유사한데, 다만 월 단위로 지급된 비교대상 임금을 소정근로시간 수에 주휴시간 수를 합산한 시간 수로 나누어 시간에 대한 임금으로 환산한다는 점에서만 차이가 있다]. 이러한 최저임금법령의 규정 내용과 취지를 고려하면, 소정의 근로일에 해당하지 않는 날에 근로자가 근로하였더라도 그 근로한 시간은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 최저임금액 이상의 임금을 지급해야 하는 시간에 포함되지 않는다고 해석함이 타당하다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
최저임금법 제6조 제1항, 제5항, 구 최저임금법 시행령(2018. 12. 31. 대통령령 제29469호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제5조 제1항 제3호, 제5조의2 제1호(현행 제5조의3 제1호 참조), 최저임금법 시행령 제5조 제1항 제3호, 제5조의3 제1호
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. 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