The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on the circumstances in its reasoning, determined as follows: (a) the third negotiation minutes of July 21, 2014 between the Defendant and the Trade Union of the Ulsan Factory and the Ulsan Factory, and the wage agreement of July 31, 2014 between the Defendant and the Sungsung Factory and the Trade Union; (b) however, inasmuch as each trade union did not obtain consent or authorization from the Plaintiffs who are its employees at the time of collective bargaining and did not obtain any subsequent consent, it is invalid for the Plaintiffs to waive the right to claim the payment or to waive their right to file a lawsuit.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant claim in violation of the principle of good faith, with the Plaintiff’s rejection of the allegation that the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant claim in violation of the Non-Institution of Lawsuit Agreement and the Plaintiff’s various benefits.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the court below, citing the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, determined that the defendant is obligated to fix each allowance, retirement allowance, and retirement pension to the plaintiffs on the basis of ordinary wages that include bonuses, job allowances, and continuous service allowances, and to pay the difference between the already paid part and the part to the plaintiffs. On the ground that the plaintiffs' claim in this case is not likely to cause serious business difficulties to the extent that the defendant is unable to cope with or endanger the company's existence, and therefore, it is difficult to view