The defendant is the plaintiff (appointed party), the appointed party, and the defendant.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it refers to the reasoning under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs’ assertion was based on ordinary wages only on the sum of the basic pay, operation allowances, technical allowances, meal service subsidies, and transportation expenses from January 2010 to December 2014, and calculated and paid overtime, night duty allowance and annual allowance.

However, since the Plaintiffs’ respective pertinent allowances (hereinafter “each of the instant allowances”) and the horses allowances, which are paid periodically, uniformly, and fixedly, constitute ordinary wages, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs overtime and night duty allowances and annual annual allowances, including the said allowances, as well as the said allowances.

Judgment

Whether a certain legal doctrine is an ordinary wage or not shall be determined based on the objective nature of the wage, based on whether the wage is a money or goods paid to an employee as a consideration for a contractual work, which is regularly and uniformly paid to an employee. It is not determined based on the name of the wage or the length of the payment cycle.

Here, the phrase “regularness” means that the wage should be continuously paid at regular intervals.

A uniform payment includes not only the payment to all workers, but also the payment to all workers who meet certain conditions or standards.

Here, “specified condition” means a condition related to the assessment of the value of contractual work, such as the contents of work or technology, experience, in light of the concept of ordinary wage to calculate a fixed and average wage.

The term "deedness" means achievements and achievements with respect to work provided by an employee.