Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Deemed-hours agreements as the basis for overtime and night pay
Supreme Court, Apr. 30, 2026, 2025Da219757 (judgment)
Case name: 임금·임금등청구
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where labour and management agree to deem a fixed number of hours as overtime or holiday work regardless of the actual hours, must overtime and holiday pay be computed on the agreed hours even when the actual hours fall short, and does the same apply to night work hours?
Holding
Yes on both points. Where labour and management, having regard to the pattern and conditions of work, agree to deem a fixed number of hours as overtime or holiday work irrespective of the actual hours, the employer may not dispute the actual hours on the ground that they fall short of that figure. Overtime and holiday pay computed on ordinary wages under Article 56 of the Labour Standards Act as it stood before the amendment of 20 March 2018 (Law No. 15513) must therefore take the agreed hours as the basis even where the actual hours fall short, and the same applies to night work hours.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 이러한 합의가 있는 경우 근로기준법상 통상임금을 기초로 구 근로기준법(2018. 3. 20. 법률 제15513호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제56조가 정한 기준에 따라 연장근로수당 또는 휴일근로수당을 산정할 때에는 실제의 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간이 위 합의한 시간에 미달하더라도 합의한 시간을 기준으로 삼아야 한다. 이는 야간근로시간의 경우에도 마찬가지이다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where such an agreement exists, in calculating the overtime pay or holiday work pay in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act (as it existed prior to its amendment by Act No. 15513 on March 20, 2018), on the basis of the ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act, the agreed hours must be taken as the standard even if the actual overtime work hours or holiday work hours fall short of the said agreed hours. The same applies to night work hours.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 원고(반소피고) 75를 제외한 나머지 원고(반소피고)들 패소 부분 중 미지급 연장근로수당 및 야간근로수당 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the claim for unpaid overtime pay and night work pay, among the losing portions of the plaintiffs (counterclaim defendants) other than Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 75 in the judgment of the court below, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
근무형태나 근무환경의 특성 등을 감안하여 노사 간에 실제의 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간과 관계없이 일정 시간을 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간으로 간주하기로 합의하였다면 사용자로서는 근로자의 실제 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간이 위 합의한 시간에 미달함을 이유로 근로시간을 다투는 것이 허용되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Taking into account the characteristics of the type of work, the working environment, and the like, if the employer and employees have agreed that a certain number of hours shall be deemed to be overtime work hours or holiday work hours regardless of the actual overtime work hours or holiday work hours, the employer is not permitted to dispute the working hours on the ground that the employee's actual overtime work hours or holiday work hours fall short of the said agreed hours.
Factors
- 근무형태나 근무환경의 특성 등을 감안하여
- 실제의 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간과 관계없이 일정 시간을 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간으로 간주하기로 합의하였다면
- 사용자로서는 근로자의 실제 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간이 위 합의한 시간에 미달함을 이유로 근로시간을 다투는 것이 허용되지 않는다.
- 근로기준법상 통상임금을 기초로 구 근로기준법(2018. 3. 20. 법률 제15513호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제56조가 정한 기준에 따라 연장근로수당 또는 휴일근로수당을 산정할 때에는
Unofficial English translation
• Taking into account the characteristics of the type of work, the working environment, and the like,
• if the employer and employees have agreed that a certain number of hours shall be deemed to be overtime work hours or holiday work hours regardless of the actual overtime work hours or holiday work hours,
• the employer is not permitted to dispute the working hours on the ground that the employee's actual overtime work hours or holiday work hours fall short of the said agreed hours.
• in calculating the overtime pay or holiday work pay in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 56 of the former Labor Standards Act (as it existed prior to its amendment by Act No. 15513 on March 20, 2018), on the basis of the ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 8. 14. 선고 2017다293629, 293636 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Da293629, 293636 decided August 14, 2019
Decisions referred to
대법원 2019. 8. 14. 선고 2017다293629, 293636 판결, 대법원 2019. 8. 14. 선고 2018다244631 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What makes an agreement to deem a fixed number of hours an agreement within this rule, and must it appear in a collective agreement and a wage agreement such as those here, or would an arrangement with each driver individually suffice?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court recomputing the ordinary hourly rate with the bonus and the arrears on the guaranteed hours will show how this rule is applied in a case with a monthly offset. Any later decision on what counts as a valid agreement to deem hours, or an amendment to Article 56 of the Labour Standards Act after the amendment of 20 March 2018 (Law No. 15513), would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 “What makes an agreement to deem a fixed number of hours an agreement within this rule, and must it appear in a collective agreement and a wage agreement such as those here, or would an arrangement with each driver individually suffice?” vs Independent “What evidence is sufficient to establish an agreement to deemed hours when the agreement's wording is ambiguous?”
The primary reading asks what form and requirements qualify an agreement, while the independent reading asks how to prove its existence when its wording is ambiguous.
따라서 이러한 합의가 있는 경우 근로기준법상 통상임금을 기초로 구 근로기준법(2018. 3. 20. 법률 제15513호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제56조가 정한 기준에 따라 연장근로수당 또는 휴일근로수당을 산정할 때에는 실제의 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간이 위 합의한 시간에 미달하더라도 합의한 시간을 기준으로 삼아야 한다. 이는 야간근로시간의 경우에도 마찬가지이다.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 High Court, in its judgment of 29 October 2025 (2019Na2018004, 2018011), held that where the workers' actual overtime and night hours fell short of the guaranteed hours, the unpaid overtime and night pay had to be calculated from the actual hours in line with the monthly offset clause in the collective agreement and the wage agreement. On the defendant's appeal it excluded weekly holiday pay from the monthly ordinary wage and divided the remainder by the monthly standard hours, holding the defendant liable for the difference in weekly holiday pay caused by the rise in ordinary wages, finding that the workers' claim for additional statutory allowances was not barred by good faith, and treating the bonus as regular and uniform pay for standard hours, that is, as ordinary wage.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that where the parties had agreed to deem fixed hours as overtime and night work, the employer could not dispute the actual hours, so the guaranteed hours must be the basis for recomputing the ordinary hourly rate with the bonus and the unpaid overtime and night pay, even where the monthly offset left the actual hours short. The court below's use of the actual hours misread the law on agreements guaranteeing hours and affected the judgment, so that part was reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court. The workers' remaining grounds were rejected for want of a concrete statement of dissatisfaction, and all four of the defendant's grounds, on the ordinary hourly rate, the weekly holiday pay difference, good faith and the character of the bonus, failed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A dispute in which labour and management made no agreement to deem a fixed number of hours as overtime or holiday work irrespective of the actual hours.
- A night-work claim where no night hours were deemed by agreement, since the Court extended the rule to night hours that the parties had agreed to treat as fixed.
- Claims for the ordinary hourly rate, the weekly holiday pay difference, the good-faith objection and the character of the bonus, on which the court below was left undisturbed.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the terms of the collective agreement and the wage agreement from June 2012 to June 2015 and identify the guaranteed hours: one hour of overtime on each regular day paid as overtime pay, five hours on each extended day paid as shift work pay, and two hours for morning-shift drivers and three for afternoon-shift drivers deemed night work, together with the monthly offset clause in each instrument. Then confirm which version of Article 56 of the Labour Standards Act governs, since the decision applied the Act as it stood before the amendment of 20 March 2018 (Law No. 15513). The remand court will recompute the ordinary hourly rate with the bonus reflected before any arrears are fixed, so the figures in the file must be capable of that recomputation.
From the official text
Points at issue
노사 간에 실제의 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간과 관계없이 일정 시간을 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간으로 간주하기로 합의한 경우, 실제의 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간이 합의한 시간에 미달하더라도 합의한 시간을 기준으로 연장근로수당 또는 휴일근로수당을 산정하여야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 이는 야간근로시간의 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where the employer and employees have agreed that a certain number of hours shall be deemed to be overtime work hours or holiday work hours regardless of the actual overtime work hours or holiday work hours, the overtime pay or holiday work pay must be calculated on the basis of the agreed hours even if the actual overtime work hours or holiday work hours fall short of the agreed hours (affirmative), and whether the same applies to night work hours as well (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
근무형태나 근무환경의 특성 등을 감안하여 노사 간에 실제의 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간과 관계없이 일정 시간을 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간으로 간주하기로 합의하였다면 사용자로서는 근로자의 실제 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간이 위 합의한 시간에 미달함을 이유로 근로시간을 다투는 것이 허용되지 않는다. 따라서 이러한 합의가 있는 경우 근로기준법상 통상임금을 기초로 구 근로기준법(2018. 3. 20. 법률 제15513호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제56조가 정한 기준에 따라 연장근로수당 또는 휴일근로수당을 산정할 때에는 실제의 연장근로시간 또는 휴일근로시간이 위 합의한 시간에 미달하더라도 합의한 시간을 기준으로 삼아야 한다. 이는 야간근로시간의 경우에도 마찬가지이다.
Order
원심판결의 원고(반소피고) 75를 제외한 나머지 원고(반소피고)들 패소 부분 중 미지급 연장근로수당 및 야간근로수당 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고(반소피고) 75를 제외한 나머지 원고(반소피고)들의 나머지 상고 및 피고(반소원고)의 상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용 중 피고(반소원고)의 원고(반소피고) 75에 대한 상고로 인한 부분은 피고(반소원고)가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the claim for unpaid overtime pay and night work pay, among the losing portions of the plaintiffs (counterclaim defendants) other than Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 75 in the judgment of the court below, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All remaining final appeals of the plaintiffs (counterclaim defendants) other than Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 75 and the final appeal of the defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) are dismissed. As to the costs of the final appeal, the portion thereof arising from the final appeal of the defendant (counterclaim plaintiff) against Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 75 shall be borne by the defendant (counterclaim plaintiff).
Provisions referred to
구 근로기준법(2018. 3. 20. 법률 제15513호로 개정되기 전의 것) 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