Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Attorney Kim Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appointed party)

Si Young Transportation Co., Ltd. (Law Firm A&S, Attorneys Gu Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 3, 2015

Incheon District Court Decision 2013Gahap30789 Decided August 22, 2014

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") and the designated parties that fall under the order to pay under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") 6% per annum with respect to each of the relevant money and each of the above money in the "amount of recognition" in the attached Table 2 list from April 1, 2013 to the date of the judgment of the appellate court of this case, and 20% per annum with respect to each of the above money from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasons why this court should explain are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment below as to the plaintiff's assertion that is especially emphasized by this court, this court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that there was no implied agreement to exclude regular bonuses from ordinary wages from the ordinary wages from the date of August 1, 2011 to November 11, 2012, to which the collective agreement in 2011 applies, and under the completion management system enforced from August 2009, the Defendant received stable financial support. Thus, even if the Plaintiff seeks additional payment of statutory allowances including the above regular bonus, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of the claim by the Plaintiff, etc. is not contrary to the good faith principle (the Plaintiff asserted that the continuous service allowances by the Plaintiff, etc. for the period to which the collective agreement in 2011 applies through the statement of reasons for appeal as of October 6, 2014 falls under the ordinary wages, but this part is not included in the scope of dissatisfaction by the Plaintiff through appeal, and is not determined separately below).

(6) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant: (a) was obligated to pay bonuses to the first-class employees in accordance with the collective agreement for 20 years; (b) the Defendant was obligated to pay the fixed amount of bonuses to the first-class employees for 20 years; (c) the Defendant was obligated to pay the fixed amount of bonuses to the first-class employees under the collective agreement for 10 years; (d) the Defendant was obligated to pay the fixed amount of bonuses to the first-class employees for 20 years; (e) the Defendant was obligated to pay the fixed amount of bonuses to the first-class employees under the collective agreement for 20 years; (e) the Defendant was obligated to pay the fixed amount of bonuses to the third-class employees for 10 years; and (e) the Defendant was obligated to pay bonuses to the first-class employees under the collective agreement for 20 years; and (e) the amount of bonuses to be paid to the Defendant’s employees under the conditions that would not constitute ordinary wages for 3 years, including the fixed amount of bonuses under the agreement for 20%.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff et al.’s claim for additional payment of legal allowances, including bonuses, as ordinary wages, is impermissible in light of the concept of justice and equity, by imposing an employer’s duty to pay additional legal allowances based on ordinary wages, which are entirely different from the common understanding of both labor and management at the time of mutual agreement, on the grounds that both labor and management have commonly understood, thereby causing serious operational difficulties for the Defendant. Therefore, it is unreasonable to view that the Plaintiff et al.’s claim for this

Ultimately, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as there is no ground.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Dae-ro (Presiding Judge)