1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a corporation that runs passenger transport business, etc., and the plaintiffs were employed by the defendant and retired from the office on each corresponding date as stated in the attached Table 2’s “retirement” column.

(Plaintiff J withdrawn on November 30, 2010 and returned on December 13, 2010, and thereafter retired on November 30, 2011). (B)

The contents of the instant wage agreement concluded each year from 2010 to 2012 with the National Automobile Trade Union Federation of which the Plaintiffs are affiliated, and the Defendant entered into the wage agreement with the following terms:

(1) The wage agreement that was concluded during the above period (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the wage agreement in this case”) provides that the total of eight hours per day and two hours per day under the Labor Standards Act shall be determined as working hours per day, and the total of twenty hours per day and two hours (one hour per day shall be recognized as night work hours) shall be determined as a certain amount of wages on the 21st day of each month. The above amount of wages shall be the amount that includes overtime work allowances, night work allowances, and weekly paid leave allowances. 2) Based on the above amount of wages, the Si’s wage is calculated (including standard working hours, overtime work hours, overtime work hours, weekly paid leave allowances, and weekly paid leave allowances; 2 hours per day, regardless of the actual working hours per day, and is uniformly recognized as overtime work hours, night work allowances, and night work allowances, etc. shall be calculated.

C. The contents of the instant collective agreement and the rules of employment, on the other hand, the National Motor Vehicle Trade Union Federation of which the Plaintiffs belong, and the bus transport business union of the Gyeongnam-do, where the Defendant belongs, concluded a collective agreement containing the instant wage agreement in 2009 and 2011 (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”), and the collective agreement and the Defendant’s rules of employment below the rules of employment.