임금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the case where the defendant, including the defendant's assertion added to this court, has been used from the sixth to nine of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In light of the legislative intent of the proviso of Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which stipulates that the rules of employment should be amended disadvantageously to workers when considering the legislative intent of the proviso to Article 94(1) of the same Act, if it is evident that the rules of employment have been modified disadvantageously to workers based on the language and text before and after the amendment, deeming the amendment reasonable under the generally accepted social norms based on circumstances or circumstances other than the contents of the rules of employment ought to be strictly construed and applied.
(2) In light of the following circumstances, the wage peak system in this case applies to the Plaintiff only when working conditions differ between the Plaintiff and the employees, and it is difficult to expect that the consent entity of the wage peak system in this case will continue to exist and apply to the remaining employees of the Defendant. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, not only the Defendant’s employees, but also the Plaintiff’s consent to the wage peak system in this case, as well as the Plaintiff’s disadvantage to the point at the time of amendment. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s consent cannot be seen as having been given to the wage peak system in this case as well as to the extent that the Plaintiff was at the time of amendment.