All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, since wages or retirement allowances for which the right to claim the payment has already been specifically made are transferred to the worker's private property area and entrusted to the worker's disposition, a trade union cannot take such action as waiver or postponement of payment, solely based on a collective agreement between the employer and the employer, unless the trade union obtains an individual

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da67536 delivered on September 29, 2000, etc.). The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, determined that the agreement between the defendant and the trade union was not effective, since it is insufficient to recognize that the trade union received individual consent or authorization from the plaintiff A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter collectively referred to as "10 persons, including the plaintiff A, etc.") regarding such agreement, even if the defendant and the trade union were to have made the non-committee agreement through the agreement of this case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the agreement to introduce materials, or by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, determined that the annual salary paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs constituted ordinary wages with the validity of regular rate and fixedness, which are the conceptual requisition of ordinary wages.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules

3. The grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 3.