The defendant related to the parties is a company with the purpose of management, such as facility management, cleaning management, security management, guidance management, parking management, etc.

The defendant concluded a facility management service contract with the Seoul National University Hospital and concluded the above service contract with the Seoul National University Hospital on January 31, 2014 and terminated on January 31, 2014.

The plaintiffs are employed by the defendant for the management of the facilities of Seoul National University Hospital and work as a shift or a group of work as shown in the attached Table 2, and are retired from the defendant on January 31, 2014.

The wage items in the labor contract entered into with the Defendant by the Plaintiffs who paid the wages, etc. are classified into “basic pay, qualification allowance, position allowance, 2 (h), overtime allowance, 100 (100), substitution allowance (8), substitution allowance (8), continuous service allowance, and other allowances2” in the case of the work period, and in the case of a shift, “basic pay (including a book-keeping allowance), qualification allowance, substitution allowance, 2 (h), extension allowance [108 = night allowance (7), holiday allowance (31), holiday allowance (8), substitution allowance (16), continuous service allowance, and other allowances (175,00 won per month)” in the case of the work period and shift work hours. It is stipulated that both the daily work period and shift pay 175,00 won per month as food and transportation support expenses.

[Attachment 1] In addition to the items of “alternative allowances (8)” and the items of “alternative allowances (16)” under the shift between the items of “alternative allowances (16)” under the preceding Article. The specific contents and the calculation method of each of the above allowances that the Defendant pays to the Plaintiffs are as follows:

The defendant's evidence No. 2, which stated the specific contents and calculation formula of allowances, was erroneously received by the defendant in error that the defendant adjusted the plaintiffs' existing arguments, and the above evidence No. 2 claimed that there is no defendant's official seal or seal, and there is no value of evidence. However, the plaintiffs filed an application with the defendant on January 15, 2015 for an order to submit documents related to the calculation criteria, such as the details of allowances and the grounds for payment, calculation formula, etc., and this court did not know all kinds of allowances.