2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Basic facts

1) Status of the parties

The defendant is an educational foundation that establishes and operates the racing University, and the plaintiff was newly appointed to the racing University on March 1, 2008 and served as an assistant professor from the social welfare administrative department on March 1, 2008, and retired on February 29, 2016.

2) Grounds for disposition rejecting reappointment

A) According to Article 31(1) of the Defendant’s Regulations on the Personnel Management of Faculty Members, in the case of an assistant professor, at least 600 points in educational business, 500 points in research business, 400 points in salary business, and 2,000 points in total for admission promotion business during the last four years can be reappointed.

B) The Plaintiff acquired the performance evaluation score as follows for four years, and among which the research achievements fall short of 500 points, which are the requirements for reappointment, the Defendant refused to re-appoint the Plaintiff on December 29, 2015 (hereinafter “instant refusal to re-appoint”) (hereinafter “instant refusal to re-appoint”) and the evidence Nos. A 1 through 3.

Point 787 points 451.17 points 550.90 points 616.90 points 2,405.97 points for 2,405.97

3) The Defendant’s research business evaluation standards

The defendant's regulation on the assessment of teachers' business is as shown in attached Form 2. Among them, the publication related to the major field, the author himself/herself has at least 100 pages, which is classified as a "other major book" and set up a maximum of 30 points.

4) Evaluation of each research product of this case

A) In the research project evaluation in 2014, the Plaintiff’s research project’s “the Social Welfare Working Project in 2014” was classified as “other major books” and received 5.44 points. In the research project evaluation in 2015, the Plaintiff’s research project’s “the Social Welfare Working Project in 2015” was also classified as “other major books” and received 5.4 points. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 7 and No. 8578, May 4, 2015>

B) Each of the above research business units (hereinafter “each of the research business units of this case”) is a report prepared by the Plaintiff after visiting social welfare facilities, etc. from the Plaintiff’s leader and a student’s debate result, etc. that the Plaintiff gathered in combination with the Plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1010, Jan. 3, 30, 199; Presidential Decree No. 1010, Jan. 1, 200; Presidential Decree No. 11010, Jan.

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without any dispute, Gap’s 1 through 5, Eul’s 7, 8, 9-1 through 3, 10-1, 2, 11-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

① Inasmuch as the compilation quantity is written as soon as the compilation quantity is written in light of the nature of the correspondence book, each of the instant research business books of this case, which is not less than 100 pages, corresponds to the Defendant’s “other research business books” in attached Table 2-2 (Attachment 2) of the Rules on the Evaluation of Teachers’ Business. ② The Defendant classified the “social Welfare Project 201” which is a form similar to each of the instant research business books in 2011 as “other research business books,” and granted 30 points to the “social Welfare Project 201” which is a form similar to each of the instant research business books in this case. However, the Defendant cannot give 30 points as the maximum score because each of the research business books of this case falls under the joint business books, given the nature of the correspondence book, it shall not be deemed as a joint business books. Accordingly, each of the research business books of this case is not granted to each of the research business books of this case, and the disposition rejecting the appointment of this case is null and void.

2) Defendant

① In order to be recognized as “other major books” in attached Table 2-2 (Attachment 2) of the Regulations on the Evaluation of Teachers’ Duties, the quantity written by the author himself/herself shall be at least 100 pages. Each of the research books of this case is limited to collection of reports and discussions prepared by students, and it cannot be deemed as “other major books” because the Plaintiff’s portion written is entirely nonexistent. ② Even if each of the research books of this case falls under “other major books,” the research books of this case constitutes multiple joint research, and thus, the Plaintiff’s score is merely a maximum of 22 points (not less than 12 points in the Social Welfare Working Project in 2014) + 12 points in the Social Welfare Working Project in 2015. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

C. Determination

1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it cannot be deemed unlawful to grant 30 points to each of the research products of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise as unlawful, in full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be known by the respective descriptions and arguments of evidence Nos. 5, 9, 5, 5 through 8, 9-1 through 3, 10-1, 2, 11-1, 24, and 14.

① According to Article 9(5) and attached Table 2-2 (attached Form 2) of the Regulations on the Evaluation of Teachers’ Duties, a publication related to a major is recognized as a “other major book” on the premise that the author himself/herself is a letter with a total of at least 100 pages. Each of the research books of this case is merely merely a compilation of a report and a student’s debate result, etc. prepared after the Plaintiff visited social welfare facilities, etc. directed by his/her students. The part directly written by the Plaintiff appears to be almost little. Thus, each of the research books of this case cannot be deemed as a “other major book.”

② Even if each of the instant research tasks falls under “other research tasks”, it cannot be deemed that the maximum points that can be given to “other research tasks” under the Regulations on the Evaluation of Teachers’ Duties are 30 points, and if it falls under “other research tasks”, it cannot be deemed that 30 points should be given to each of the instant research tasks. In addition, as seen earlier, each of the instant research tasks does not have any part directly drawn by the Plaintiff, and the student’s report, etc. is merely merely a simple compilation, and it does not seem that there is no circumstance to set 30 points, the maximum points for each of the instant research tasks.

③ Although the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant granted 30 points to the previous type of research business, the Plaintiff’s assignment of 30 points to the previous type of research business was made only once in 201, 4 points in 2012, and 3 points in 2013. In particular, in 2013, the Plaintiff did not give the initial performance evaluation points to “social Welfare Working Project 2013,” which is a similar type of research business, but the Plaintiff did not raise any objection until the instant disposition for refusal to re-election was at issue. However, the Plaintiff granted three points to the Plaintiff on the defect of the research business as materials produced from the instruction professor and students’ joint collaboration in 2012. The Plaintiff granted three points to the Plaintiff on May 44, 2014, and May 4, 2015.

2) As long as it cannot be deemed unlawful to grant 30 points to each of the instant research projects, the Plaintiff’s research projects fall short of 500 points, which are the requirements for reappointment, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking invalidation of the disposition rejecting the reappointment of the instant case is without merit, and on a different premise, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking remuneration until the Plaintiff is reappointed is without merit.

2. As to the claim for remuneration equivalent to the reduced portion in accordance with the Rules on the Allowances of Teachers and Staff amended on March 30, 2012

(a) Basic facts

1) On August 30, 201, the Defendant newly established the provision on the remuneration of teachers and the annual salary contract system for teachers by amending the above provision on August 30, 201, and newly established the provision on the remuneration of teachers and the annual salary contract system for teachers.

2) On March 28, 2012, 71 of the 77 full-time faculty members were present for the amendment of the Defendant’s Rules on the Remuneration of Teachers and Staff of the race University No. 2B01, on March 28, 2012, the number of full-time faculty members was entered in the list of the teachers present for the amendment of the Regulations, and the number was entered in the list of the teachers present for the amendment of the Regulations at the time of entry, and the number was issued a ballot paper

3) 피고 측은 교직원수당규칙의 개정사유 및 목적으로 ‘◈ 2011. 7. 사립대학 경영컨설팅 이행과제, ◈ 이행과제명 : 교원인건비관리, ◈ 이행목표 : ◆ 2011년부터 교원인건비(등록금수입대비) 32% 상한, ◆ 등록금수입 총액은 정부에서 보조하는 (가칭) 등록금 보전 정부지원 금액을 포함한다. ◆ 2011년 4월 1일 기준 교원확보율 유지’를, 개정내용으로 ‘제2조의2(예산의 범위) 이 규칙에 의하여 교원에게 지급하는 수당에 대한 예산의 범위 안에서라 함은 교원보수를 등록금수입 대비 32% 이하 범위 내에서 지급하는 것을 말한다’를, 2010년 기준 경북지역대학 교원인건비의 비율과 2009년부터 2011년까지의 경주대학교 등록금대비 교원인건비의 비율을 각 설명하였다〈을 제16호증 및 변론 전체의 취지〉.

4) After that, 71 full-time faculty members present cast their votes using the ballot paper No. 47 marks (including 2 marks by absentee), 13 marks, 13 marks, 8 marks, and 3 marks without voting (including ballot papers) in which the result of the ballot counting was obtained, and the consent of a majority of the former teachers was obtained. < Amended by Act No. 1730, Dec. 17, 2007>

5) On March 30, 2012, the Defendant newly established Article 2-2 of the Regulations on the Allowances for Teachers and Staff, and revised that the allowances to be paid to teachers shall be paid within the limit of 32% of the revenues from the registration fees. The above revised Regulations on the Allowances for Teachers and Staff stipulate that bonus, fixed-term allowances, household allowances, major leave allowances, annual leave allowances, annual leave allowances, research allowances, additional dues, research subsidies, school affairs guidance expenses, amount of school affairs, transportation expenses, and student guidance expenses (hereinafter referred to as “other allowances”) shall be paid within budgetary limits, but family allowances shall not be subject to such restriction (in the case of the Plaintiff, the childcare leave allowances are not subject to the above restriction, but are not subject to the said allowances). Article 20 of the above amended Rules on the Allowances for Teachers and Staff provides that

6) In order to ensure that the total amount of remuneration of the teachers does not exceed 32% of the tuition income, the Defendant paid 11% of the total amount of remuneration of the teachers including the Plaintiff from March 2013 to February 2014; 28% from March 2014 to October 2014; 86.31% from February 2014 to February 2015; 28.5% from March 2015 to September 2015; and 36.9% from October 2015 to January 37, 2016; and 36.9% from May 6, 2014 to October 37, 2014; 303 through 37; and 36.6% from March 3, 2015 to January 37, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 15 through 17, 20, 30 through 34, 36, 37, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

A) The Defendant’s Rules on the Remuneration of Teachers and Staff (hereinafter “instant Rules”) amended on March 30, 2012 constitutes an unfavorable rules of employment to the Defendant’s teachers and staff, including the Plaintiff. To this end, the consent of the majority of the employees by collective decision-making method is required under the proviso of Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act while the employer’s intervention or interference was excluded. The Defendant was unable to freely express his/her own opinion as to the instant Rules by voting in registered form. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the instant Rules were null and void. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the reduced remuneration (e.g., salary and allowances) and damages for delay.

B) Even if the instant rule is valid, it is unlawful to reduce the salary and family allowance in accordance with the instant rule, since the said rule only covers allowances other than family allowances. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the reduced salary, family allowance and damages for delay.

2) Defendant

A) The Rules of this case are amended through legitimate procedures. The mere fact that a registered voting was made does not mean that there was no “a majority consent by the means of collective decision-making by workers under the condition that the employer’s intervention or interference was excluded.”

B) Since teachers, including the Plaintiff, and the Defendant decided to reduce the remuneration of 32% or less of the tuition income, it is legitimate to reduce the amount of full remuneration, including the salary and the respective allowances, according to the instant rule.

C. Determination

1) Whether the amendment of the instant rule is lawful

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the amendment of the Rules of this case requires the consent of the majority of workers by means of collective decision-making in a situation where the employer's intervention or interference was excluded in the employer's side. Accordingly, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(1) In order for an employer to amend the existing working conditions to be disadvantageous to workers due to the amendment of the rules of employment, consent is required by the collective decision-making method of the workers to whom the previous working conditions or the rules of employment was applied, and any amendment to the rules of employment without such consent is null and void. Therefore, if there is no trade union, consent by the meeting method shall be obtained from a majority of the workers. A consent by the meeting method is allowed in exchange for opinions between the workers under the condition that the employer’s involvement or interference is excluded by the organization or unit department of a business or a single workplace, and it shall be allowed to combine the whole process after gathering arguments among the workers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23185, 23192, May 14, 2004). In addition, even if an employer exchanged opinions among the workers and combined them with all of them, it shall not be deemed unlawful if it took place in the process of employer’s participation or interference.

② Prior to the amendment of the instant rule, the Defendant explained the main contents of the said rule to the faculty, carried out a registered vote for pros and cons, and as a result, 47 persons who agreed to the amendment of the instant rule, it shall be deemed that there was the consent of a majority of the full-time faculty members by collective decision making.

(3) After confirming the indication of opinions on pros and cons and the distribution of opinions thereon, the most desirable method in the process of gathering or combining them shall not be deemed to be limited to the vote for life or secret, or it may not be deemed to be limited to the vote for life or secret, and it is difficult to readily conclude that there was any unfair intervention or interference by the employer on the grounds that the defendant, after making a written vote, took charge of the process of a meeting or the voting method was selected by the defendant.

2) The subject matter of the instant rule

(a)a salary (basic salary);

In light of the following facts, it is reasonable to view that the salary cannot be reduced on the ground of the instant rule, in light of the aforementioned facts, which can be seen by adding up the above evidence Nos. 19 and 25 to the entries and the purport of the entire pleadings.

(1) Article 4 of the Regulations on Remuneration of Teachers and Article 6 of the Regulations on the Contract for Annual Salaries of Teachers shall be divided into salaries and allowances for teachers. The salary shall be determined according to the Regulations on Remuneration of Teachers, but the rate of increase in salaries and the rate of payment of allowances shall be determined based on the grades determined according to the results of evaluation of teachers, and the Addenda to the Regulations on Remuneration of Teachers provides that where the amount of salary under the Regulations on Remuneration of Teachers exceeds the monthly payment or is less than

(2) Article 6(3) of the Regulations on the Contract System of Annual Salaries for Teachers provides that allowances shall be fixed in accordance with the Regulations on the Allowances for Teachers. Article 14 of the Regulations on the Remuneration for Teachers provides that necessary allowances may be paid to teachers in addition to their salaries within budgetary limits, and the types, scope of payment, amount of payment, etc. of allowances shall be prescribed separately by the Rules

(3) Article 2 of the Regulations on the Allowances for School Employees provides that "the kinds, scope of payment, and amount of allowances to be paid to school employees shall be governed by these Rules," and that various allowances, such as bonus allowances, shall be paid within budgetary limits.

(b) allowances;

As seen earlier, other allowances under the instant rules are required to be paid within the scope of the budget, but there is no such restriction on family allowances. Therefore, the reduction of allowances under the instant rules shall be limited to other allowances except family allowances.

3) Illegal reduction portion

(A) the amount of remuneration paid exceeds the aggregate of the salaries and family allowances before the reduction;

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in light of the aforementioned facts and evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to readily conclude that such reduction was unlawful in cases where the amount of remuneration paid by the Defendant after the reduction under the instant rule exceeds the total amount of salary and family allowances before the reduction. Therefore, the Defendant’s remuneration reduction made from March 2013 to October 2014, which exceeds the total amount of salary and family allowances paid to the Plaintiff before the reduction of the amount of remuneration paid, and from March 2015 to January 2016 cannot be deemed unlawful.

① In order to ensure that the total amount of the remuneration of the teachers including the Plaintiff does not exceed 32% of the tuition income, the Defendant reduced the amount of the remuneration by the method of reducing a certain ratio from the total amount of the salary and the respective allowances, not from the amount of the remuneration specified and reduced, but from the total amount of the remuneration and the respective allowances. Accordingly, in the instant case, it is difficult to find out whether the Defendant reduced the amount of the salary or the family allowance that the Plaintiff was unable to reduce according to the instant rule during the period from March 2013 to October 2014, from March 2015, from March 2015 to January 2016, and from the time when the reduction was made, no data was submitted to confirm whether the amount of the remuneration or the family allowance reduced according to the instant rule was reduced and its ratio was reduced.

② The main purpose of the amendment of the instant rule was to reduce the personnel expenses of teachers to less than 32% compared to the tuition income. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the remuneration of teachers regardless of the rate of reduction, regardless of the rate of reduction, to most of the allowances, so as to make up to the extent not exceeding 32% of the tuition income. Accordingly, if the salary or family allowance cannot be reduced according to the instant rule, the Defendant is anticipated to have paid the reduced amount of other allowances that can be reduced to the corresponding amount, and in the absence of any difference in the actual amount of remuneration, it appears that the Plaintiff et al. received it.

B) the amount of remuneration paid falls short of the total amount of the salary and family allowance before the reduction.

(1) However, according to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant paid remuneration to the Plaintiff by reducing approximately 86.31% from November 2014 to February 2, 2015 according to the instant rule for four months. According to the above acknowledged facts, the amount of remuneration paid during the above period falls short of the total sum of the salary and the family allowance before the reduction. In such a case, in such a case, the Defendant is bound to have paid not only other allowances but also family allowances or the salary that may not be reduced according to the instant rule. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the remuneration reduction during the above period was unlawful.

2,024,200 won for family allowances of 2,024,200 won for February 2015, 2024, 2024,200 won for family allowances of 20,000 won for family allowances of 20,000 won for December 2015, 2014, which are included in the main sentence of November 2014, 3,151,560 won for 2,54,30 won for 2,54,300 won for other allowances of 2,54,300 won for 2,54,300 won for 2,544,30 won for 3,560 won for 3,050 won for total remuneration of 4,58,500 won for 4,508,500 won for 4,5888,500 won for 700 won for 504,539,639636,639,6364,

(2) Therefore, the defendant shall return to the plaintiff 1,32,90 won [the sum of the salaries and family allowances reduced in November and December 2014 1,416,030 won [the salary 2,024,200 won + Family allowances 20,000 won + Actual remuneration 628,170 won], the sum of the salaries and family allowances reduced in January 2015 [the salary 2,024,200 + Family allowances 20,000 won + Actual remuneration 71,300 won] - The sum of the salaries and family allowances reduced in February 2015 1,346,750 [the salary 2,00 won + Family allowances 20,000 won]; the actual remuneration - the actual remuneration - the actual remuneration - the actual remuneration - the actual remuneration - the actual remuneration - the actual remuneration - the actual remuneration - the actual remuneration - the actual remuneration - the actual remuneration - the plaintiff.

(3) As to this, the Defendant alleged that the amount equivalent to the amount of the salary reduction in the above period was paid to the Plaintiff as a research grant, and thus, it did not have the salary reduction in accordance with the instant rule. However, the said research grant is deemed to have been paid for a limited period of time for the purpose of the research promotion of teachers, and the said research grant does not constitute the wage that is paid as compensation for work, such as submission of a thesis or a book of at least one research performance for each teacher. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the payment of the research grant was made unlawfully reduced due to the payment of the research grant, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s argument cannot

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,511,710 ( KRW 1,416,030 for November 2, 2014 + KRW 1,332,90 for December 1, 2014 + KRW 1,332,90 for February 1, 2015 + KRW 1,346,750 for the unpaid remuneration for each month, as indicated in the attached Table 1, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay damages for delay from the corresponding date to November 2, 2016, which is the date of this decision, to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated annually by 15% as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next date to the date of full payment.

3. As to a claim, etc. for remuneration equivalent to a reduced amount of salary pursuant to the Regulations on the annual salary contract for teachers

(a) Basic facts

1) The Defendant paid KRW 2,024,20 to the Plaintiff for February 2, 2015. However, from March 2015 to March 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 1,963,470 reduced in KRW 60,70, as a salary. Moreover, the bonus and household support expenses, which are allowances paid in connection with the salary, were reduced compared to that prior to that from March 2015, and were paid after the deduction of the bonus and household support expenses paid. < Amended by Act No. 13183, Mar. 6, 2015

2) The reasons why the salary, bonus, and household support are reduced are as follows.

A1 (10%) +5% +5% + 140% A2 (20%) +3% + 120% A3(40%) +0% + 10% A4(20%) + 10% +3% + 80% - 80% A5(10%) -5% 60% - B5% -5%

According to Article 6 of the Regulations on the Contract for the Annual Salaries of Teachers newly established around August 30, 201, remuneration shall be classified into salary and allowances (Paragraph 1), and the salary shall be determined in accordance with the Regulations on the Performance Evaluation of Teachers in attached Table 1, and shall be assessed in accordance with the standards determined in paragraph 4 of the same Article, and shall be paid in accordance with the grade determined in accordance with paragraph 4 of the same Article (Paragraph 2). Allowances shall be determined in accordance with the Regulations on the Remuneration for Teachers, but the bonus and household expenses shall be assessed in accordance with the performance Evaluation Table of Teachers in attached Table 1, but the bonus and household expenses shall be paid in accordance with the grade determined in accordance with paragraph 4 of the same Article (Paragraph 3), the ratio of the class determined for the remuneration and the rate determined for the remuneration, and the allowances shall be paid in accordance with paragraph 4 of the same Article (paragraph

3) In accordance with the above provision of the annual salary contract system for teachers, the Plaintiff received class A3 from the performance evaluation in 2013 and 2014, and did not change the previous salary and allowance. However, the Plaintiff received class A4 from the performance evaluation in 2015, and 3% was reduced compared to the annual salary in 2014, and 20% was reduced, and the allowance was reduced by 20%, < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21758,

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 19, and 21 through 23, the purport of all entries and arguments

B. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the provision on the annual salary contract for teachers is newly established without consent of a majority of the teachers according to the collective decision-making method, the above provision is null and void. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the reduced plaintiff's salary and the reduced allowance to the plaintiff based on the above provision.

C. Determination

1) According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 26 through 29, the defendant held an explanatory meeting on July 13, 201 on the establishment of the Regulations on the Contract of Teachers and the Regulations on the Remuneration of Teachers on July 13, 2011 to the faculty, and provided guidance on the fact that voting is held on whether to give consent; the result of the ballot counting in the voting conducted on July 13, 201 with "Shosung 61 (including 1st, 2nd, 11st, and 5th," and the majority of the faculty members obtained consent; thereafter, the resolution of the school affairs committee passed on August 4, 201 and the board of directors passed on August 30, 201, the newly established Rules on the Contract of Teachers and the Regulations on the Remuneration of Teachers are recognized as invalid, and there is no evidence that the above annual salary rules were newly established in accordance with the above recognition procedures.

2) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on a different premise is without merit to examine further.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges private iron machines (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-ho Kim

1) According to Article 9(3) of the Defendant’s Regulations on the Evaluation of Teachers’ Services, in the case of a cooperative research institute, a person in charge of research (1± (n+1) x 2) x 2. Since at least five students participating in the instant research institute in 2014 are at least five, the maximum points that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive are about 10 points (=30 points (the maximum points for the evaluation of other major records) x 1 x 2).

2) Since at least four students participating in the instant research project in 2015 are at least four, the maximum points that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive shall be approximately 12 (=30 points (the maximum points of evaluation of other majors’ achievements) ¡¿ [1± (4+1) + 2].

3) The Defendant initially paid approximately 11% reduction as seen above, but the Defendant paid additional allowances reduced on or around March 2014 to the teachers in order to ensure that the total amount of remuneration paid to teachers does not reach 32% of the tuition revenue as a result of subsequent settlement. Considering the amount additionally paid, the final reduction rate of the teacher’s remuneration during the above period is approximately 8.7%.

4) The payment of remuneration seems to have been 25th day of each month, and if so, the next day after the payment date of the above remuneration will be the initial date.