2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11, K

12. L.

13.N

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the transportation and continuous service allowances, the lower court, based on the admitted evidence, found the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the monthly payment of a certain amount of transportation expenses paid to workers who have served for more than a year, including a certain amount per year for continuous service, including the monthly wage, is a fixed wage paid periodically and uniformly, regardless of work performance, as it is included in ordinary wages.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ordinary wages

2. As to the grounds of appeal on weekly holiday allowances, Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “an employer shall grant an employee at least one paid holiday per week average,” and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “The paid holiday under Article 55 of the same Act shall be granted to a person who has shown perfect attendance of contractual working days during a week.” Such weekly holiday allowance is a wage that is deemed to have been performed by an employee even if the employee does not actually work on the weekly holiday, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that it is an allowance that is calculated on the basis of ordinary wages in light of its nature as it is a wage that is paid by deeming that the employee has actually worked on the weekly holiday (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da74144, Jan. 28,

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding allowances subject to ordinary wages, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) Plaintiff C, D, F, I, N (hereinafter “the above Plaintiffs”) merely received interim accounts of retirement pay in the form of interim retirement and re-admission on each interim retirement date of this case without reducing the previous employment relationship with the Defendant; (b) the above Plaintiffs’ continuous service allowances for the above Plaintiffs should be calculated on the basis of the initial employment period of the above Plaintiffs; and (c) the above Plaintiffs received retirement allowances in accordance with the provisions on the payment of retirement allowances at the time of the interim settlement of accounts of each of the above retirement allowances, with the intent to receive interim settlement of retirement allowances without the intention to discontinue the previous employment relationship; and (c) it cannot be deemed that the above Plaintiffs received unjust enrichment without any legal grounds; and (c) it is difficult to view that the above Plaintiffs received interim settlement of accounts of retirement allowances, and thus, received excess retirement allowances without legal grounds.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on interim settlement of retirement allowances

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han