(a) The case holding that if the total amount of wages under the amended benefit regulations without asking the workers' intent is less than the total amount of wages under the previous benefit system, the above amended benefit regulations cannot be effective as an amendment to the rules of employment because they were unilaterally modified without the workers' consent;

(b) The case holding that the amount is not money of the nature of compensation for actual expenses, such as expenses for commuting transportation and delivery, which have been uniformly paid to all employees of the Secretariat other than the Secretary General regularly and systematically according to their grades, but money of the nature of wages subject to work;

A. The case holding that the above revised provision can not be effective as an amendment to the rules of employment because it unilaterally changes the rules of employment, inasmuch as the total amount of wages received by employees under the above revised provision of salary is less than the total amount of wages calculated by the previous wage method, by revising the above revised provision of salary, if it unilaterally changes the rules of commuting transportation to and from work, job allowances, long-term continuous work allowances, and new school expenses and family allowances without asking the employees' intent, and by revising the above revised provision of salary regulations without asking the employees' intent, and by expanding the difference in wages between grades, the above revised provision of salary cannot be effective as an amendment to the rules of employment.

B. The case holding that the basis for the payment of commuting transportation expenses is not necessarily stipulated in the wage rules, but are regularly and systematically paid to all employees of the Secretariat except the Secretary-General, and in lump sum paid to all employees of the Secretariat according to their grades, and in particular, if commuting transportation expenses are provided to the Secretary-General who does not pay the commuting transportation expenses, the above payment of commuting transportation expenses is not the amount of compensation of actual expenses such as travel expenses and outing expenses, but the amount of money with the nature of wage as the object of work under Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act.

A. Article 95(b) of the Labor Standards Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Da15952, 15969, 15976 delivered on February 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 979). Supreme Court Decision 91Da3031 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1280), Supreme Court Decision 91Da17542 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2602) (Gong1981, 148), Supreme Court Decision 81Da697 delivered on October 13, 1981 (Gong1981, 148), Supreme Court Decision 90Da23868 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 218).

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee)

Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na5259 delivered on September 10, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, based on the adopted evidence, the court below unilaterally determined that the defendant paid 70,000 won to the head of the office and the deputy head of the office as the cost of commuting transportation every month in accordance with the former wage rules enacted on February 1, 1983 and the Secretariat's allowance payment policy enacted on April 1, 1984, and 20,000 won to other employees, 50,000 won to the continuous employees for 3 years or longer as a duty allowance, and 10,000 won to the continuous employees for 9 years or more as a long-term continuous allowance, 20,000 won to the continuous employees for 11 years or more, and 30,000 won to the above employees for 30,000 won as well as 30,000 won to the above employees for 1987.

In comparison with records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and they are not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the modification of wages and rules of employment, such as theory of lawsuit, or in the misconception of facts

(2) According to the purport that the Defendant cannot provide commuting bus to all employees who are scattered in each place, and thus, it cannot be included in the wage, from a mutually advantageous perspective, since the above commuting transport expense was paid to the meaning of compensation for actual expenses for commuting from the perspective of beneficial interest, this cannot be included in the wage. According to the records, the payment of commuting transport expense in this case is regularly and systematically paid to all employees of the secretariat other than the Secretary General, even though the basis for such payment is not specified in the wage rules. In addition, the Secretary General who does not pay commuting transport expense, in particular, provided commuting transport expense to the employees of the secretariat, who do not pay commuting transport expense to the employees of the secretariat, is not the amount of compensation for actual expenses such as travel expense, travel expense, etc., but the amount of wage as the object of work under Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)