임금 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part regarding the plaintiffs in the annexed Form 2 shall be modified as follows.
The defendant shall submit attached Form 2.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) except for the elimination of the retirement adjustment allowances, transfer adjustment allowances, and performance-based agreements (the part related to retirement adjustment allowances) from the judgment of the court of first instance, the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (c) The above Plaintiffs’ claim as to the Plaintiffs’ claim as to the Plaintiffs’ claim as to the payment of holiday work allowances exceeding 40 hours per week, even though they constitute holiday work and overtime work at the same time; (d) the Defendant paid holiday work allowances at 50% corresponding to overtime work allowances and unpaid retirement allowances (interim payment) reflecting the average wage. However, the above Plaintiffs’ claim as to overtime work hours under the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15513, Mar. 20, 2018) should not be deemed as included in weekly standard and overtime work hours, and the remainder of overtime wages and overtime work allowances are not required (see, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2191.
3. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims in attached Form 2
A. The above plaintiffs asserted that the regular bonus in this case constitutes ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act, and seek the difference between the amount of interim settlement of the retirement allowance and the amount of interim settlement of the amount of the retirement allowance that reflects the difference between the amount of statutory allowances paid and the amount of additional statutory allowances based on ordinary wages, including that of the ordinary wages.
As to this, the defendant did not constitute ordinary wages, since the payment of the regular bonus of this case added additional conditions that meet a certain number of working days, and thus does not constitute ordinary wages.