Therefore, the Plaintiffs appealed only to the bonus in this case, welfare points, and overtime work allowances calculated in addition to ordinary wages, and the scope of the trial on the party’s basis is limited to the bonus in this case and welfare points.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is that, except for the removal of “the full amount shall be paid to the person to whom the payment is made” as “the person to whom the payment is made”, and “the full amount shall be paid to the person to whom the payment is made” as “the person to whom the payment is to be made” as “the person to whom the payment is to be made” as “the person to whom the payment is to be made.” As such, it

3. Determination on ordinary wages

A. 1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) Although the bonus and welfare points in the instant case constitute ordinary wages that are regularly, uniformly, and fixedly paid, the Defendant paid overtime work allowance to the Plaintiffs based on ordinary wages excluding this. Therefore, as the instant bonus and welfare points were omitted in the payment of overtime work allowance calculated on the basis of ordinary wages calculated by aggregating the instant bonus and welfare points (5% of the basic salary converted into the monthly payment rate + monthly welfare points (basic, continuous service, and family points) plus the monthly payment, the Defendant shall pay the amount of overtime work allowance omitted to the Plaintiffs. 2) Defendant (i) there is no rate of payment for the instant bonus to the persons who are less than one month, and there is additional condition that the instant bonus should be paid for a certain number of working days (not less than one month per entry month) in addition to the provision of labor in order to pay some bonuses.