The defendant.

2. Determination as to the scope of ordinary wages

A. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the additional continuous service charges for the Plaintiff’s ordinary workers, the major holiday cost, the additional continuous service charges for the Plaintiff’s commercial workers, the fixed school meal cost, the transportation subsidy, the amount of salary, the sanitation allowance, and the holiday leave cost are included in the scope of ordinary wages under each Labor Standards Act.

B. The defendant asserts to the purport that the plaintiffs' wage increase through the ordinary wage lawsuit is an act violating the good faith principle formed between the labor and management, since the current situation where the wages and working conditions of ordinary workers or street cleaners are significantly improved.

On the other hand, the principle of good faith is an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship should not exercise the right or perform the duty in a way that is contrary to equity or less trust, taking into account the other party’s interest, and has provided good faith to the other party to deny the exercise of the right on the ground that it violates the principle of good faith.

In light of the concept of justice, it is difficult to deem that the principle of trust and good faith has been formed between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant that the Plaintiffs would not make a wage person through ordinary wage litigation, and the Plaintiffs’ filing of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant in order to receive additional allowances and retirement allowances as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act is against the principle of trust and good faith.