1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Presumed facts

A. The Plaintiffs concluded a labor contract with the Song River Transport Business Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former Co., Ltd.”) and were engaged in driving service.

Before merger, the company was merged with the defendant on February 13, 2013.

(b) Matters concerning calculation of basic wages under the rules of employment or collective agreement of the company prior to the merger are as follows:

From May 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, Article 70 (Calculation of Basic Wages) The basic hourly wage for workers on the monthly salary system is the amount calculated by dividing the monthly ordinary wage by the contractual working hours (226 hours).

From July 1, 2011 to December 4, 2012, Article 69 (Calculation of Basic Wages) The basic hourly wage for workers on the monthly salary system is the amount calculated by dividing the monthly ordinary wage by the contractual working hours (209 hours).

From February 5, 2012 to February 28, 2013, the rules of employment of the front line are not applicable.

C. On May 2012, Plaintiff G, B, C, etc. entered into a labor contract with the company prior to the merger (annual salary) and the said contract is accompanied by a statement of calculation of annual salary.

According to the annual salary calculation statement, the above plaintiffs received the amount calculated by calculating the allowances for overtime working hours 30 hours and 16 hours on the overtime working hours regardless of actual overtime work hours, etc. according to the calculation method of overtime working hours under the Labor Standards Act as a fixed amount.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 4, Eul's evidence 8 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The main point of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the annual salary contract that the Defendant entered into with the Plaintiffs is null and void in violation of the rules of employment. As such, from the date when the period for request by each Plaintiff was calculated to November 201, 2012, the Defendant calculated various allowances, such as weekly holiday allowance, overtime allowance, overtime work allowance, holiday work allowance, night work allowance, etc. for working hours exceeding the contractual work hours included in the annual salary according to the Plaintiffs’ actual working hours, and the difference between the wages