임금
1. The Defendant’s each Plaintiff’s money stated in the “personal fee” column in attached Form 2. and as to the money, from March 4, 2014 to March 2015.
1.The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties:
The defendant is a juristic person established for the purpose of protecting and preserving park resources in national parks under Article 44 of the Natural Parks Act, and the plaintiffs are employees of the defendant.
B. The Defendant calculated and paid legal allowances, such as overtime work allowances (excluding ordinary wages, etc.) and paid them to the Plaintiffs, with the exception of (1) transport expenses subsidies, (2) meal expenses subsidies, (3) special area service allowances, (4) minimum wage in the government-management performance rating, (5) risk allowances, (6) holiday allowances, (7) holiday allowances, (8) holiday allowances, (9) holiday allowances, (1) bonus, and (1) bonus, and (4) minimum wage items in the government-management performance rating, (1) wage items in self-performance rating, which are the minimum wage items in the annual salary system for all employees, and (2) the remainder is paid by the previous 2010.
C. On August 28, 2013, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant that the ordinary wage, including each of the above items, should be estimated, and the amount of statutory allowances, etc. payable according to the ordinary wage, which was fixed at the highest date, should be paid within three years, and the Defendant did not comply with the foregoing, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on February 21, 2014.
The money of each of the above items received by the plaintiffs from September 2010 to August 2013 is excluded from the holiday expenses for each plaintiff.
3. The name of each plaintiff is the same as the description of the corresponding item in the sheet;
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant, including the aforementioned 11 items, had a duty to additionally pay statutory allowances, etc. that were less paid to the Plaintiffs from September 2010 to August 2013. The Plaintiffs asserted that the calculation is identical to the amount stated in the purport of the claim.
As to this, the defendant shall be 7 of the year 2010 among the above 11 items.