1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. The first instance court rejected this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s regular bonus paid only to workers who work as of the payment date among the production skilled workers pursuant to collective agreement and wage regulations, etc., did not constitute ordinary wages.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ordinary wages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Ground of appeal No. 2 (1) In order for a certain wage to belong to ordinary wages, it must have the nature of uniformly paid.

A uniform payment includes not only the payment to all workers, but also the payment to all workers who meet certain conditions or standards.

Here, “specified condition” should be a fixed condition in light of the concept of ordinary wage to calculate a fixed and average wage.

In addition, considering the fact that the ordinary wage is a concept that evaluates the value of the contractual work, the standard for determining whether the wage paid to all workers within a certain scope is a daily rate, the conditions related to the assessment of the value of the contractual work, such as the contents of the work or technology and experience, should be considered.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed. (2) The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following.

(A) The Defendant’s production skilled workers are divided into a shift of work as well as a shift of work as provided in Article 4(3).

In the case of a shift worker, the average 42 hours per week is worked even without a separate overtime work, and two hours per week is generated.

(B) Article 12 subparag. 2 of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant is applicable.