The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

1. Regarding the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the scope of ordinary wages, the lower court determined that: (a) CCTV allowances for working on board (i) the employees agreed to pay a fixed daily amount according to the area driven by the employees (i) the bus operation area was operated by the Defendant divided into “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, “A”, and “A”, “A”, “A”, in the case of a bus operation area, was paid to all drivers who provided labor, under the name of a fixed wage”, regardless of the actual work performance.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of ordinary wages, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to the calculation of working hours

(a) If the calculation of an hourly ordinary wage determined by a monthly wage rate is based on the amount calculated by dividing that monthly ordinary wage rate by the standard number of hours for the calculation of the monthly ordinary wage (the standard number of hours for the calculation of weekly ordinary wages multiplied by the average number of weeks per year, divided by 12);

(Article 6(2)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act. However, in cases where an employee receives a monthly salary or a monthly fixed allowance, along with a basic rate, for agreed working hours exceeding the standard working hours stipulated in the Labor Standards Act, the employee is paid in the form of the monthly salary or the monthly salary.