1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the plaintiff's assertion, shall be determined as stated in paragraph 2 below, and it shall be determined as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception of the substitution of the "List of Attached Amount 2" in Form 32 of the judgment of the court of first instance into the "List of Attached Amount 2" in Form 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this shall be cited as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The additional decision (in addition to the part of the first instance judgment No. 14th page 9), where the collective agreement in 2012 is not retroactively applied, the defendant asserts that the wage increase calculated retroactively from August 1, 2012 pursuant to the above agreement concluded on November 12, 2012 should be deducted from unjust enrichment. However, the above agreement merely excludes the retroactive application to the extent that it renounces the right to claim payment of the additional legal allowances that have already arisen specifically without the consent or authorization of the plaintiff et al., and there is no specific proof of the deducted amount. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. A part of the petition accepted (Articles 24 through 27 pages 8 through 13, written by the court of first instance).

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of violation of the principle of good faith

A. Even if the Defendant’s assertion that bonuses constitute ordinary wages, since bonuses are paid on the premise that bonuses are not included in ordinary wages through collective agreements, etc., the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of unpaid portion of the statutory allowances of this case is contrary to the labor-management agreement by including bonuses into ordinary wages, and bring about serious managerial difficulties by causing excessive financial burden to the Defendant. Thus, it cannot be permitted as it violates the principle of good faith.

(B) The Defendant did not explicitly express the aforementioned defense regarding the part related to the continuous service allowances.

The relevant legal doctrine and collective agreement.