부당이득금 반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for partial modification, deletion, or addition as follows.
The 7th day of August, 198 at the bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended to the 7th day of August, 15, 1st day of October, and 3th day of October."
The "work allowances" shall be revised to "basic pay" at the bottom of the three pages of the judgment of the first instance, and the "work allowances" at the fourth level.
Part 4, 3, and 4 of the first instance court's decision "No. 1, 2, and 3 of the first instance court's decision" shall be amended to "No. 1, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 1 of the first instance court's decision."
The following shall be deleted from the "number of working days" to the 15th parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel
According to the above legal principles, the weekly holiday allowance in this case is determined depending on whether or not the number of working days was opened or not, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have a fixedness, which is a conceptual requisition of ordinary wages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81974, Apr. 12, 2007). The instant congratulatory holiday allowance in this case is new (1 January), three (1), three (3) days (15 August 15), three (15), three (3) days (10 October 3), three (10), five (5) days (10 May 1), and the worker’s day, regardless of whether or not the worker worked for the said holiday, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the weekly holiday allowance in this case is paid only to the worker at the time of the relevant holiday, and it does not have a fixed nature, and thus, it does not constitute ordinary wages. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant weekly holiday allowance in this case falls under the ordinary wages is without merit.