Plaintiff 6

Plaintiff 8 et al.

Plaintiff 12

Plaintiff 7

Plaintiff 10 and one other

Plaintiff 13

Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. As to the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff

A. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 through 4

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that bonus payments, O/T allowances, O/T allowances for institutional improvement, group pension contributions, group injury insurance premiums, organization donation fees, premium for camping membership fees, expenses related to sports games, performance points, and research incentives do not constitute ordinary wages. Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the fixedness and payment date requirements related to ordinary wages.

B. The grounds of appeal No. 5 points are as follows: (a) where the claim for additional legal allowances is rejected due to the violation of the good faith principle in a case where a regular bonus is added to ordinary wages and seeking payment of additional legal allowances based thereon, the lower court invoked the legal doctrine of the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399 Decided December 18, 2013; (b) where the labor and management entered into a labor-management agreement on December 16, 2013, and (c) where bonus is included in ordinary wages, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the amount of additional charges to be borne by the Defendant to be paid to the employees in technical service, as the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and regulations on the payment of additional legal allowances from 2010 to 2012; and (d) the lower court’s determination that the Defendant violated the above legal doctrine on the amount of additional allowances to be paid to the employees in excess of the aforementioned legal doctrine on the amount of retirement allowances to be paid by the Defendant’s.

C. On the ground of appeal No. 6, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below as follows: (a) with respect to the claim for the difference between the interim settlement of accounts, including the average wages of the plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7, 8, and 12, for the payment of the first instance court's annual pension premium, organization premium, organization premium, and organization injury premium, etc. which are included in the above average wages; (b) with respect to the claim for the difference between the interim settlement of accounts, including the average wages, the above amount is increased; (c) although the plaintiffs' attorney included in the above average wages; (d) if the above amount is based on the X-gu data submitted by the plaintiffs, the defect in the calculation of organization premium, organization accident insurance premium will be cured; (d) the defendant has already recognized it as average wages; (e) sports expenses, sports promotion expenses, sports promotion expenses (special circumstances); and (e) organization injury insurance premium, etc., the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above interim retirement allowance.

2. As to Defendant’s grounds for appeal, in relation to the claim for additional statutory allowances based on the ordinary wage set in the lower court’s determination, the Plaintiffs submitted a storage medium containing this digital file containing the increased amount of statutory allowances incurred when the Plaintiffs are recognized as ordinary wage. At the third statutory date of pleading of the lower judgment, Defendant’s attorney stated that there was no dispute over the calculation method and amount of the said electronic file at the third statutory date of pleading of the lower court

The lower court, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, did not dispute that each of the instant allowances constitutes ordinary wages, the Defendant did not dispute the existence of unpaid statutory allowances for the Plaintiff’s assertion, and then calculated unpaid statutory allowances depending on whether to recognize ordinary wages of each of the instant allowances. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, if the Plaintiffs were to recognize each of the instant allowances as ordinary wages, materials concerning the increase in statutory allowances, including annual leave allowances incurred therefrom, may be submitted, and if the Defendant did not dispute the increase in the amount, then the confession may be deemed to have been established at least in relation to the amount (which is not considered as the subject of confession even in the calculation method). In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on confession and methods of calculating the amount of annual leave allowances, or by omitting judgment.

The court's exercise of the right to ask for Elucidation is contrary to the party's assertion, or when there is any incomplete or unclear error in its contents, giving an opportunity to correct or supplement it, and urging the submission of evidence as to the disputed facts, and thus, inducing the submission of the evidence by suggesting the requirement facts as to the legal effect of the dispute not asserted by the party or independent means of attack and defense is contrary to the principle of the oral argument, and it goes beyond the limit of the exercise of the right to ask for Elucidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da19526, Oct. 10, 200). This part of the judgment below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations due to the non-exercise of the right to ask for Elucidation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min You-sook of the District Court

Justices Lee Dong-won