Among them, the part against the plaintiffs other than the plaintiffs AE is reversed, and this part of the case is reversed.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court calculated the unpaid weekly holiday allowance based on ordinary wages.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding weekly paid leave allowances and ordinary wages, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise stated in the grounds

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that: (a) weekly holidays must be given at least one day a week; and (b) there was no proof of collective agreements or employees’ consent for legitimate substitution of holidays.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the number of holiday work days or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiffs unpaid holiday work allowance in addition to 50/100 of ordinary wages for holiday work, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant paid holiday work allowance in excess of the amount of statutory holiday work allowance added for the reasons indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s reasoning was somewhat inappropriate; however, in so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding holiday pay as stated in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the court below held that the efficiency allowance of this case is on holiday work.