임금
1. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff (appointed party) and the plaintiff.
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs (1,618) and Q, etc. (6 persons including Q, AE, ATN, AY, BFE (1513), BG, and hereinafter collectively referred to as “1,624 persons including the Plaintiffs”) paid legal allowances, such as overtime work, night work, holiday work, and holiday work allowance, after calculating only the amount corresponding to the monthly salary, as ordinary wages, to 1,624 persons including the Plaintiffs, as well as compensation for delay, the Defendant claimed in the above amount of money against the Defendant. However, it constitutes self-performance, special area work expenses, receipt and disbursement allowances, and audit information activity expenses, and thus constitutes ordinary wages calculated based on ordinary wages, and thus, it is obligated to pay the difference between the amount already paid and compensation for delay.”
The first instance court held that “the portion exceeding 133% of the monthly basic salary out of the self-performance rate of class 3 or higher employees” among the claims of 1,624, including the Plaintiffs, is not ordinary wage. The rest of the claims accepted all, and accepted part of the claims of 1,624, including the Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, only the defendant appealed as to the part against the defendant.
In the trial before remanding, 1,624, including the Plaintiffs, claimed the payment of unpaid welfare points in addition to the ordinary wage items. The purpose of the claim is to expand the self-performance rate of employees of class 3 or higher among ordinary wage items only 133%, and to claim the payment of unpaid allowances accordingly, and to reduce the purport of the claim, and to change the claim for damages for delay.
The trial prior to the remand accepted all the claims of 1,624 persons, including the expanded and reduced plaintiffs.
Therefore, the defendant appealed again.
The Supreme Court held that "welfare points do not constitute ordinary wages, as they do not constitute wages," and held that they are ① the judgment of the party before remanding.