2. The plaintiff 158's claims and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit incurred between the plaintiff 158 and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff 158, and 2/3 of the costs of lawsuit incurred between the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 158 and the defendant shall be borne by the remaining plaintiffs, and 1/3, respectively by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The defendant is a special corporation established by Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the purpose of the medical treatment business, and the plaintiffs are workers employed by the defendant and engaged in the duties of nurses, physical therapy, radiation specialists, clinical pathology, etc.

B. The contents of ordinary wages in the collective agreement in 2010 and 2013, which apply to the Plaintiffs, are as follows.

Article 35(Definition of Ordinary Wage and Average Wage) (1) of the collective agreement in 2010 (Definition of Ordinary Wage) (Definition of Ordinary Wage and Average Wage) (1) of the 35(Definition of Ordinary Wage and Average Wage) of the collective agreement in 2013 (Definition of Ordinary Wage and Average Wage) shall be limited to basic pay, technical allowance, risk allowance, risk allowance, adjustment allowance, adjustment allowance, and school meal allowance determined to be paid periodically and uniformly to employees with respect to prescribed labor or total labor. (1) Ordinary wage means basic pay, technical allowance, risk allowance, adjustment allowance, school meal allowance, long-term overtime allowance, special department’s allowance, specific business performance, effective leave allowance determined to be paid periodically and uniformly to employees.

C. The main contents pertaining to bonus allowances among the defendant's rules of employment are as follows.

The bonus allowance (A) bonus allowance shall be paid to the executives and employees who are in office as of the date of payment. (b) The regular bonus allowance shall be paid within the limit of the budget in four installments each year (two months, April, June, and August) and the bonus allowance shall be determined separately by the Evaluation Committee of Local Public Enterprises of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, and the detailed matters shall be determined by the Medical Center of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. (c) The bonus allowance shall be paid to the full-time officers and employees who have been in office for not less than two months including the month to which the payment is made until the payment is made, and shall be paid to the new employees and employees who have been in office for not less than 15 months on a monthly basis as of the date of issuance, and shall be excluded from calculation for less than 15 days on a monthly basis, and if the retired employee retires before the payment of the bonus allowance is made, it shall be calculated on a monthly basis as of the date of issuance, and shall be excluded from calculation for not less than 15 days.

D. From around 2008, the Defendant granted welfare points to all employees within budgetary limits, and operated a selective welfare program through which employees settle goods and services falling under autonomous items online or in welfare cards using welfare points in advance, and where the Defendant notifies the Defendant of the details of use, the Defendant has been operating the selective welfare program through which employees pay money equivalent to points used on the 16th day of the following month. The main contents are as follows.

(4) Welfare points for each of the employed persons shall be allocated on January 1 and July 7 in the previous year as follows: 60 points which are given 60 or more but less than 10 but less than 60 or less than 15 and less than 60 years less than 10 or less than 20 or less than 60 or less than 150 or less than 600 or less than 150 or less than 6285 or less than 10 or less than 600 or less than 1500 or less than 200 or less than 200 or less than 150 or less than 200 or less than 150 or less than 628 or less than 6035 or less than 200 or less welfare points in the previous year (excluding new employees' employment points in the previous year), and 100 or more than 200 or less than 300 or more welfare points in the previous year shall be allocated to one half or more of 7 months or more.

E. The defendant has a certain position as an employee of Grade ゲ or higher, and in the absence of a position, he has paid job performance allowance, and in the absence of a position, he has paid the job performance allowance, and the relevant regulations and their key

8. The term "value-added allowance" means office-grade 0, annual allowance, long-term work allowance, overtime work allowance, child-care allowance, specific work bonus, etc. 0 = 00 per month for employees 】 0-10th of the budget base for the payment of entertainment expenses, etc. - 20th of the budget base for each of the following 0- 0th of the budget base for employees: 0th of October, 20th of the budget base for the payment of office-1st of October: 0th of October, 20th of October, 3rd of the budget base for the payment of office-1st of October, 20th of October: 0th of October, 3rd of the budget base for the payment of office expenses ? 0th of October, 20th of October: 4th of October, 3rd of the budget base for the payment of office expenses ? 0th of October:

F. The Defendant calculated and paid overtime allowance, night work allowance, annual paid holiday work allowance, and holiday work allowance on the premise that the above regular bonus, welfare points, job performance allowance, and work performance allowance are excluded from ordinary wages.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 15, 20, 21, 27, 28, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

Despite the fact that regular bonus, welfare points, job performance allowance, and duty performance allowance constitute ordinary wage, the Defendant calculated ordinary wage except for the calculation of the basic ordinary wage when paying overtime allowance, night work allowance, annual leave work allowance, holiday work allowance, and holiday work allowance (hereinafter “instant statutory allowance”) to the Plaintiffs. The above wage items also constitute ordinary wage.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay each of the corresponding money stated in the “claim Amount” column in the claim amount and the quoted amount table for each Plaintiff corresponding to the difference between the statutory allowances of this case, welfare points, job performance expenses, job performance expenses, and duty performance expenses, which are calculated as ordinary wages, from November 2010 to October 2013.

3. Whether it falls under regular bonus, welfare points, job performance bonus, and ordinary wage of job performance allowance.

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act defines ordinary wages as “the hourly wage, daily wage, weekly wage, weekly wage, monthly wage, or contract amount to be paid to an employee for a prescribed work or total amount of labor.” Whether a wage falls under ordinary wages shall be determined according to the objective nature based on which the wage is paid periodically, uniformly, and fixedly as money and valuables paid to an employee in return for a contractual work. The name of the wage or the payment cycle shall not be determined by formal standards, such as the name of the wage or the length of the payment cycle.

The term “regularity” in this context means that the wage ought to be continuously paid at a certain interval. The term “daily rate” refers to the nature that is uniformly paid, which includes not only the payment to all workers, but also the payment to all workers who meet a certain condition or standard. Here, the term “specified condition” in this context refers to a fixed condition in light of the concept of ordinary wage to calculate a fixed and average wage. Even if a collective agreement or rules of employment provides for grounds for restrictions on the payment of a specific wage to a leaver, reinstated, or a person to be disciplined, etc., such restriction is merely a restriction on the payment of the wage in light of the individual characteristics of the relevant worker, and thus, the daily rate of the payment of the wage does not deny for a worker who maintains a normal labor relationship based on such circumstances.

Finally, the term “fixed wage” refers to “the nature, regardless of its achievements, achievements, and other additional conditions, which naturally becomes final and conclusive for the work provided by an employee.” The term “fixed wage” refers to the minimum wage that an employee who has worked on a voluntary day, regardless of the name of the wage, would be paid in return for his/her daily work even if he/she retires on the next day.” Thus, whether an employee would be paid as a matter of course, regardless of the additional conditions, if he/she provides contractual work on a voluntary day, or the amount determined in advance is fixed. This refers to the condition that the implementation of the work is not yet determined at the time of providing his/her work on the voluntary day, such as extension, night, or holiday. It is difficult to determine that an employee has the nature of the work provided at least 20 days prior to the said decision, even if he/she had no fixed work at the said time. However, it is difficult to determine that the employee has the nature of the work provided at least 9 days prior to the said decision.”

(b) Regular leisure allowances - Illegal:

The fact that the Defendant’s bylaws in the enforcement of the remuneration regulations stipulate that “neither bonus nor bonus shall be paid to the executives and employees who are in office as of the payment date. If an employee retired before the payment date of bonus, the bonus allowance shall be calculated on the basis of the retirement announcement date, but not less than 15 days shall be excluded from calculation.” Thus, even if a worker voluntarily provided a contractual work on a voluntary date, the bonus allowance shall not be paid unless the worker is in office as of the payment date of bonus or meets the additional conditions that the monthly working days exceed 15 days. In full view of the purport of the arguments in each statement in the evidence No. 13 and No. 14 above, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant paid 100% of the basic salary as bonus allowance and retired from office four times a year before the payment date of bonus allowance under the above provisions and did not pay bonus allowance to the worker who has worked less than 15 days before the payment date of bonus allowance. The bonus allowance cannot be determined at the time of providing the contractual work on a voluntary date, and does not constitute ordinary

The plaintiffs paid 400% of the basic salary on the 20th day of each month as bonus allowance to the employees in extraordinary civil service, unlike the above salary rules in the enforcement of the above remuneration rules, the plaintiffs asserted that bonus allowance is wages paid only when they provide the prescribed work. In full view of the whole arguments in the evidence No. 6, No. 25, and No. 26, the defendant paid 400% of the basic salary on the 20th day of each month as bonus allowance to the employees in extraordinary civil service as 12th day of each month as bonus allowance. However, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant paid bonus to the retired workers in extraordinary civil service even though he did not work for 15 days or more after March 1, 2014, since it can be recognized that the fact that the bonus was not paid to the regular workers in extraordinary civil service, the above circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize the fixedness of the plaintiffs' bonus payment to the employees in extraordinary civil service.

C. Welfare points - Recognition

As seen earlier, the Defendant allocated a certain amount of welfare points to all employees each year in accordance with the content of the selective welfare program, and assessed one point as KRW 1,000, and provided that employees may freely purchase goods and services falling under the autonomous items using the welfare card through online or welfare affiliated affiliated businesses. As such, selective welfare expenses provided by the Defendant to employees in the form of welfare points are regularly, uniformly, and fixedly paid to employees as remuneration for contractual work. Accordingly, selective welfare expenses constitute ordinary wages.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that welfare points are provided by the defendant who is the employer in a favorable and mutually advantageous manner, but they are allocated welfare points on January 1 of each year but paid in installments in January and July, so the actual use of welfare points is currently in office at the time of payment in the first and second half of the year. From 2008 to 2012, there is a difference in the possibility of settlement at the time of retirement depending on the date of entry, and the possibility of settlement at the time of retirement is changed. Unused welfare points are extinguished in the corresponding year, and the actual receipt amount of welfare points must be confirmed after the lapse of the corresponding year. Therefore, the defendant asserts that there is no rate and fixedness.

The term “wages” refers to all money and valuables, regardless of the name thereof, which are paid as compensation for work (Article 2(1)5 of the Labor Standards Act); as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that welfare points are money and valuables paid by the Defendant to its employees as compensation for work; where an employee in office provides contractual work, a certain point is allocated on January 1 of each year when the employee in office provides contractual work; the employee retired from office is calculated and settled on a daily basis; and new employees from 2008 to 2012 are fixed in that the points are allocated depending on their employment dates. In addition, even if welfare points are not carried over only when they are paid in actual use of welfare points, this is merely a matter concerning the follow-up use of the already granted welfare points, and as a matter of principle, the employee in charge of welfare points has the authority to dispose of the entire points. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is not accepted.

(d) position-level job performance expenses, job performance support expenses - recognition;

According to the above evidence, the defendant has a provision on the guidelines for the payment of expenses for the sale of goods, welfare rules, job performance expenses, and job performance expenses, and the person in charge of the third or higher position who has established each year's payment policies shall be recognized as having paid a certain amount of job performance expenses every month for the person in charge of the third or higher position, and a certain amount of job performance expenses every month for the person in charge of the third or higher position among the employees in Grade 3 or higher position. Such a certain position and position conditions as above constitute a final and conclusive fact at the time of providing contractual work, and are recognized as fixed, and they are also acknowledged as a condition related to the assessment of the value of the contractual work. Accordingly,

The Defendant asserts that the amount of payment, etc. should be determined in accordance with the annual guidelines, which lacks fixedness because the amount of payment, etc. is not determined in advance. According to the above evidence, if the Defendant provided contractual work on a voluntary day of the pertinent year, regardless of whether additional conditions are met, if the employee provided contractual work on a voluntary day of the pertinent year, the amount of payment for the job performance and the amount of the job performance are determined in advance. The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Calculation of the statutory allowances of this case to be paid additionally by the defendant

According to the above evidence, the legal allowances of this case, including the above 3.C., welfare points, job performance expenses, and job performance support expenses, as stated in Paragraph (d) above, are fixed and the money to be paid as the difference in the statutory allowances of this case and the pre-paid statutory allowances of this case is as stated in the "personal amount" in the attached table of the claim amount and the quoted amount for each plaintiff (Provided, That there is no additional amount paid by the plaintiff 158).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remaining Plaintiffs, excluding Plaintiff 158, the amount of claim by Plaintiff and the amount of award indicated in the “personal amount” column for each of the pertinent amounts indicated in the annexed sheet, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from November 1, 2013 to January 14, 2016, the sentencing date of the instant case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

5. Determination as to the defendant's defense of violation of the principle of good faith

Although the plaintiffs agreed to exclude each of the above items from ordinary wages and received the above legal allowances of this case on the basis of this agreement, it violates the principle of trust and good faith to seek additional payment of statutory allowances of this case. However, each of the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 through 11, 12, and 18 is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs' claim is pursuing interest other than the wage level that is much higher than the wage level agreed upon by the labor and management, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant's unexpected financial burden would cause serious managerial difficulties or endanger the company's existence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The defendant's defense is without merit.

6. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims except the plaintiff 158 are accepted within the scope of the above recognition with reasons, and the claims of the plaintiff 158 and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed as they are groundless.

[Attachment]

Judges Jeong Chang-hee (Presiding Judge)