1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of “for all street cleaners at a certain time each year” under Section 11, Section 21, the first instance court’s ruling is deemed to be “for all street cleaners, not as a payment condition, at a certain time every year; and (b) the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for adding “additional determination of the second instance court” under Section 2, the following is the same as the part of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Matters to be determined additionally by the second instance;

A. The defendant's assertion is that the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to exclude regular bonuses from the calculation standard of ordinary wages in the labor-management agreement that was made through the wage negotiation process and set wage level on the premise thereof, but the plaintiffs' right to seek additional statutory allowances based on the above added regular bonuses to ordinary wages is contrary to the good faith principle.

B. The provisions of the Labor Standards Act that provide that the labor-management agreement shall be paid in addition to 50% or more of the ordinary wage for overtime, night, and holiday work are set at the minimum standard for calculating wage for each pertinent work. Therefore, in cases where the labor-management agreement is reached to calculate additional wage for overtime, night, and holiday work without excluding part of the ordinary wage’s wage, if the amount calculated under the labor-management agreement falls short of the above standard prescribed under the Labor Standards Act, the labor-management agreement shall be null and void within the extent that falls short of the standard prescribed under the Labor Standards Act. In such a case, where the labor-management agreement, such as the labor-management agreement, becomes null and void due to the violation of the Labor Standards Act’s mandatory provisions, it would result in excluding the assertion of invalidation on the ground that