The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

A. The defendant is a stock company established for the purpose of in-flight food supply business and food business.

B. The Plaintiffs entered into an employment contract with the Defendant and retired from office as stated in the column of “the date of retirement from office (the number of days of retirement)” in the attached Table 1 sheet, and the Defendant paid retirement allowances as stated in the column of “base pay” in the attached Table 2 to the Plaintiffs.

(c)

The Defendant paid annual performance bonus to the Defendant’s workers, including the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant performance bonus”), and paid performance bonus (payment on December 22, 2017) to the Plaintiffs that retired in 2018, and did not pay performance bonus (payment on July 31, 2018) in the year 2017.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. Plaintiffs 1) Although the instant performance bonus constitutes wages for which the Defendant’s employees are continuously and regularly paid each year as remuneration for work and the obligation to pay to the Defendant under labor practice was deleted, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs a performance bonus in 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiffs were not members of a trade union subject to the collective agreement or the provision on restriction on self-payment in office.

As a matter of course, the right to claim performance bonus in this case is recognized to non-labor union members such as the plaintiffs, and the provision on restriction on self-payment of wages is null and void in violation of the Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory law, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs a performance-based bonus in 2017 (the same as the stated in the column) and its delayed damages.

2) As the instant performance bonus falls under wages, the Defendant should have reflected the performance-based bonus in 2016 in calculating the retirement allowance to be paid to the Plaintiffs, but the Defendant paid retirement allowances not reflecting this.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiffs.