Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Excluding workers absent on guaranteed holidays from the five-worker headcount
Supreme Court, Jan. 25, 2024, 2023Da275998 (judgment)
Case name: 임금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When an employee did not actually work on a day that is guaranteed as a holiday under the Labour Standards Act or an employment contract, must that employee be counted in the aggregate number of employees used and the daily number of employees under Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree in deciding whether the business regularly employs five or more workers?
Holding
No. A business regularly employs five or more workers when the number of workers it uses is in that state, judged objectively by social common sense, even if the number sometimes falls below five. Since a weekly holiday is a day on which no work obligation is guaranteed under Article 55(1) of the Labour Standards Act, an employee who did not actually work on it is excluded from the aggregate and daily headcounts, and this holds whether the rest days fall on fixed dates and in fixed numbers or rotate and therefore vary.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 취지에 비추어 보면 주휴일은 근로기준법 제55조 제1항에 따라 주 1회 이상 휴일로 보장되는 근로의무가 없는 날이므로, 주휴일에 실제 근무하지 않은 근로자는 근로기준법 제11조 제3항의 ‘상시 사용하는 근로자 수’를 산정하는 기준이 되는 같은 법 시행령 제7조의2 제1항의 ‘산정기간 동안 사용한 근로자의 연인원’ 및 같은 조 제2항 각호의 ‘일별 근로자 수’에 포함하여서는 아니 된다.
Unofficial English translation
In light of the foregoing, since a weekly holiday is a day on which there is no obligation to work, guaranteed as a holiday once a week or more pursuant to Article 55 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, an employee who did not actually work on a weekly holiday must not be included in 'the aggregate number of employees used during the calculation period' under Article 7-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act and 'the number of employees on each day' in each subparagraph of paragraph (2) of the same Article, which serve as the basis for calculating 'the number of employees regularly used' under paragraph (3) of Article 11 of the same Act.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 퇴직금 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다. 원고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below finding against the plaintiff with respect to the claim for retirement pay is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court. The plaintiff's remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이 경우 상시란 상태를 의미하므로 근로자의 수가 때때로 5인 미만이 되는 경우가 있어도 사회통념에 의하여 객관적으로 판단하여 상태적으로 5인 이상이 되는 경우에는 이에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
In this case, 'regular' means a state, so even if the number of employees occasionally falls below five, this requirement is satisfied where it is objectively determined in accordance with socially accepted notions that the number is five or more as a continuing state.
Factors
- 주휴일은 근로기준법 제55조 제1항에 따라 주 1회 이상 휴일로 보장되는 근로의무가 없는 날이므로
- 근로기준법이나 근로계약 등에 따라 ‘휴일로 보장되는 근로의무가 없는 날’에 실제 근로자가 근무하지 않았다면
- 근로자의 수가 때때로 5인 미만이 되는 경우가 있어도 사회통념에 의하여 객관적으로 판단하여 상태적으로 5인 이상이 되는 경우에는
- 매월 또는 매주 휴무일이 발생하는 일자나 요일이 특정되어 있고 휴무일수가 일정한 경우뿐만 아니라
Unofficial English translation
• since a weekly holiday is a day on which there is no obligation to work, guaranteed as a holiday once a week or more pursuant to Article 55 (1) of the Labor Standards Act
• if an employee did not actually work on 'a day on which there is no obligation to work, guaranteed as a holiday' under the Labor Standards Act or an employment contract, etc.
• even if the number of employees occasionally falls below five, where it is objectively determined in accordance with socially accepted notions that the number is five or more as a continuing state
• not only where the specific dates or days of the week on which monthly or weekly days off occur are designated and the number of days off is constant, but also
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2023. 6. 15. 선고 2020도16228 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2020Do16228 decided June 15, 2023.
Decisions referred to
대법원 2000. 3. 14. 선고 99도1243 판결(공2000상, 1009), 대법원 2008. 3. 27. 선고 2008도364 판결, 대법원 2023. 6. 15. 선고 2020도16228 판결(공2023하, 1258)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does a non-suit agreement covering wages for November 2016 also bar claims for additional sums such as late-payment interest calculated on those same wages?
The remand judgment on the retirement pay claim will show how the court reads the plaintiff's claim and recalculates the amount. Any later decision on the reach of a non-suit agreement, or an amendment to Article 11 of the Labour Standards Act or Article 7-2 of its Enforcement Decree, calls 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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does a non-suit agreement covering wages for November 2016 also bar claims for additional sums such as late-payment interest calculated on those same wages?” vs Independent “How should workers absent on days that are not guaranteed holidays, such as leave days, be treated in these employee counts?”
The primary reading points to whether a November 2016 non-suit agreement also covers late-payment interest, while the independent reading points to employees absent on non-guaranteed leave days. These are different unresolved points.
이러한 취지에 비추어 보면 주휴일은 근로기준법 제55조 제1항에 따라 주 1회 이상 휴일로 보장되는 근로의무가 없는 날이므로, 주휴일에 실제 근무하지 않은 근로자는 근로기준법 제11조 제3항의 ‘상시 사용하는 근로자 수’를 산정하는 기준이 되는 같은 법 시행령 제7조의2 제1항의 ‘산정기간 동안 사용한 근로자의 연인원’ 및 같은 조 제2항 각호의 ‘일별 근로자 수’에 포함하여서는 아니 된다.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 Seoul Southern District Court, in its judgment of 17 August 2023 (2022Na54724), held that the plaintiff and the defendant had agreed not to litigate the November 2016 wages and dismissed that part of the suit. Taking the view that employees who did not work on days guaranteed as holidays were excluded from the aggregate and daily headcounts, it found that the motel was not a workplace regularly employing five or more workers, so the premium pay rules for overtime, night and holiday work did not apply. On retirement pay it recalculated KRW 5,246,536 allowing for work during rest periods, allowed only KRW 3,847,909, the amount the plaintiff claimed, and deducted the KRW 3,545,260 already paid once more.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the dismissal based on the non-suit agreement, and no error in the court below's reading of the criteria for a business regularly employing five or more workers or in its treatment of proof. On retirement pay it disagreed: the plaintiff's preparatory statement of 17 December 2021, maintained on 17 April 2023, calculated the entitlement at KRW 7,393,169 and claimed the balance after deducting the KRW 3,545,260 already received, so the claim was likely not a reduction of the amount but the remainder after an admitted deduction. The court below should have clarified and examined which it was; that failure affected the judgment, so that part was reversed and remanded and the rest of the appeal was dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- An employee who in fact worked on a day guaranteed as a holiday, since the exclusion is limited to those who actually did not work on that day.
- A business whose number of workers does not reach five even as a state, so that the counting question does not decide the matter.
- An absence that is not a day guaranteed as a holiday under the Labour Standards Act or an employment contract, since the Court confined itself to such days.
Record verification notes
Set each day off against Article 55(1) of the Labour Standards Act and the employment contract to confirm that it was a day on which no work obligation was guaranteed, and record who actually worked on it. Then recompute the aggregate and the daily headcounts under Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree with those days removed, since the Court excluded them from both figures. Separately, read the plaintiff's preparatory statements on retirement pay to see whether the claim is the whole entitlement or the balance after the amount already paid, because that is the point the Court sent back.
From the official text
Points at issue
근로기준법 제11조 제1항에서 정한 ‘상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장’의 의미 / 근로기준법이나 근로계약 등에 따라 ‘휴일로 보장되는 근로의무가 없는 날’에 실제 근무하지 않은 근로자가 ‘상시 사용하는 근로자 수’를 산정하는 기준이 되는 근로기준법 시행령 제7조의2 제1항의 ‘산정기간 동안 사용한 근로자의 연인원’ 및 같은 조 제2항 각호의 ‘일별 근로자 수’에 포함되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Meaning of 'a business or workplace that regularly uses five or more employees' as provided in Article 11 (1) of the Labor Standards Act / Whether employees who did not actually work on 'a day on which there is no obligation to work, guaranteed as a holiday' under the Labor Standards Act or an employment contract, etc. are included in 'the aggregate number of employees used during the calculation period' under Article 7-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act and 'the number of employees on each day' in each subparagraph of paragraph (2) of the same Article, which serve as the basis for calculating 'the number of employees regularly used' (negative)
Summary of the holding
근로기준법 제11조 제1항의 ‘상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장’이라 함은 ‘상시 근무하는 근로자의 수가 5명 이상인 사업 또는 사업장’이 아니라 ‘사용하는 근로자의 수가 상시 5명 이상인 사업 또는 사업장’을 뜻하는 것이고, 이 경우 상시란 상태를 의미하므로 근로자의 수가 때때로 5인 미만이 되는 경우가 있어도 사회통념에 의하여 객관적으로 판단하여 상태적으로 5인 이상이 되는 경우에는 이에 해당한다. 이러한 취지에 비추어 보면 주휴일은 근로기준법 제55조 제1항에 따라 주 1회 이상 휴일로 보장되는 근로의무가 없는 날이므로, 주휴일에 실제 근무하지 않은 근로자는 근로기준법 제11조 제3항의 ‘상시 사용하는 근로자 수’를 산정하는 기준이 되는 같은 법 시행령 제7조의2 제1항의 ‘산정기간 동안 사용한 근로자의 연인원’ 및 같은 조 제2항 각호의 ‘일별 근로자 수’에 포함하여서는 아니 된다. 이때 매월 또는 매주 휴무일이 발생하는 일자나 요일이 특정되어 있고 휴무일수가 일정한 경우뿐만 아니라, 근로자들이 매월 또는 매주를 주기로 순환하여 휴무일을 가짐에 따라 휴무일이 발생하는 일자나 요일 및 휴무일수가 변동되는 경우에도 마찬가지로 근로기준법이나 근로계약 등에 따라 ‘휴일로 보장되는 근로의무가 없는 날’에 실제 근로자가 근무하지 않았다면 ‘산정기간 동안 사용한 근로자의 연인원’ 및 ‘일별 근로자 수’에 포함되지 아니한다.
Order
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 퇴직금 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다. 원고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below finding against the plaintiff with respect to the claim for retirement pay is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court. The plaintiff's remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
근로기준법 제11조 제1항, 제3항, 제55조 제1항, 근로기준법 시행령 제7조의2 제1항, 제2항
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