All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ night and holiday working hours constitute ordinary working hours, and that the Plaintiffs’ full night and holiday working hours should be included in working hours as well as the hours they actually engaged in radiation shooting, etc.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of working hours for which statutory allowances are paid under the Labor Standards Act

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the blanket wage agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was constituted, as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the comprehensive wage agreement.

3. As to the third ground for appeal, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s bonus, meal allowance, long-term service allowance, and business promotion expenses paid to its employees are included in ordinary wages.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for ordinary wages.

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiffs’ claims seeking payment of bonuses, meal allowance, long-term service allowance, and business promotion expenses are contrary to the good faith principle by including them in ordinary wages.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.