The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

1. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that bonus allowances paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs are not included in ordinary wages.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the daily rate and fixedness requirement of ordinary wages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, where an employer intends to receive money and valuables from an employee as remuneration, the said money and valuables should first be paid as remuneration for work. Thus, even if such money and valuables were paid continuously and periodically, if it cannot be deemed that they were paid as remuneration for work, it shall not be deemed that the occurrence of the obligation to pay money and valuables is directly related to the provision of labor or closely related thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da55934, May 12, 1995; 201Da23149, Jul. 14, 2011). According to the reasoning and the lower judgment’s en banc decision, where the employer continuously allocated welfare points to employees based on collective agreements that can use welfare points by purchasing goods from an employee-only online shopping site, etc., among various welfare items, the Defendant does not constitute ordinary wages pursuant to the Labor Standards Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da23149, Jul. 14, 2019).