The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. As for the assertion regarding the denial of an action, a specific right to claim the payment of wages or retirement allowances already occurred is transferred to the worker’s private property area, and the labor union is entrusted with the worker’s disposition. Thus, insofar as the labor union does not obtain an individual consent or authorization from the worker, the collective agreement between the employer and the employer is not sufficient to give up

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da76317 Decided January 28, 2010. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s trade union, which was a member of the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.”) concluded a wage agreement in 2011 with the Defendant, concluded a lawsuit with the Defendant that “the labor and management would not make an objection against the wages and various allowances paid before this agreement,” but did not have an effect on the Plaintiff, etc., on the ground that the said written lawsuit agreement was concluded without individual consent or authorization of the Plaintiff, etc.

Examining the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. With respect to the assertion that night work allowances and life-saving bonuses should be included in comparative wages, the lower court determined that ① night work allowances paid to the Plaintiff et al. each month constitute “wages other than wages paid for contractual work hours” as the premise of night work, which are excluded from the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act and subordinate statutes, and ② explanatory stone.