1. The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

The defendant (attached Form 2) to the plaintiffs.

1. Scope of trial of this court after remand;

A. 138 workers in the production skilled service who belong to the defendant, including the plaintiffs, filed a claim against the defendant as co-Plaintiffs in the first instance trial, for the difference and delay damages after deducting the amount of retirement allowances already paid for the same period from the ordinary wages calculated on the ground that regular bonuses, regular leave allowances, continuous leave allowances, and 4/3 allowances constitute ordinary wages, including regular leave allowances, regular leave allowances, continuous service allowances, and 4/3 allowances, and ordinary wages calculated on the ground that such allowances constitute ordinary wages. The co-Plaintiffs in the first instance trial, who received interim settlement of retirement allowances including the plaintiff A, filed a claim against the defendant for the difference and delay damages after deducting the amount of retirement allowances already paid from each retirement allowance calculated on the basis of each of the aforementioned allowances, which were re-determined as above, and damages for delay.

B. The court of the first instance rejected the Defendant’s claim on the ground that: (a) the regular bonus, regular leave allowance, and Article 4/3 allowances, except continuous service allowances, do not constitute ordinary wages; and (b) safety allowances, which do not constitute ordinary wages, were paid based on the hourly ordinary wage calculated based on the fixed hourly ordinary wage by including continuous service allowances and excluding safety allowances; and (c) the difference calculated based on the fixed hourly ordinary wage; (d) the Defendant’s obligation to pay only the difference between the difference calculated based on each of the instant allowances, which was re-determined as above, and the difference between each of the instant allowances, which was re-determined based on the fixed hourly ordinary wage, constituted an agreed allowance, on the ground that there was no difference in the annual leave allowances.

C. As to this, the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed against each part of the judgment against them, and the plaintiffs have newly filed an appeal against the working hours exceeding 40 hours per week.