1. The plaintiff A's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant has to the plaintiffs as stated in the attached Table 2 "official fees" column.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a public corporation that performs the business of house sale guarantee and house lease guarantee, etc., and the plaintiffs are the defendant's workers.

B. The Defendant paid wages to the employees by dividing them into basic salary, job allowances, allowances (work allowances, family allowances, adjustment allowances), performance-based bonuses (in addition, performance-based bonuses, and management evaluation performance bonuses). However, in introducing the annual salary system around 2010, the Defendant changed the wage system to pay the basic annual salary consisting of the standard annual salary and job-based salary, and the performance-based incentives that are classified into performance-based bonuses and management evaluation performance bonuses.

(c)The performance-based bonus of performance-based incentives shall consist of (1) the self-performance-based bonus that pays an amount equivalent to 50 percent of the monthly basic salary (in February of each year), (2) the adjustment allowances for evaluating the performance of the previous year and paying an amount equivalent to 40 percent of the monthly standard salary in the corresponding year of payment; (3) the adjustment allowances for assessing the performance of the previous year and paying an amount equivalent to 80 percent of the monthly standard salary in the corresponding year of payment; and (4) the adjustment allowances for executive employees to pay an amount equivalent to 80 percent of the monthly standard salary in the corresponding year of payment after evaluating the performance of the previous year; and

In addition, the management evaluation performance rating of performance-based incentives has been converted from 2012 to 250% of the basic annual salary in the corresponding year of payment by evaluating workers' work performance in the previous year, and the 250% of the management evaluation performance rating was converted to 2012 to 200% of the management evaluation performance rating.

The Defendant paid the Plaintiffs statutory allowances calculated by including only the basic annual salary as ordinary wages, and some of the Plaintiffs included the Defendant’s “performance and salary” on December 23, 2013 and on December 24, 2013.