1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon receiving an additional claim from the trial court, the Defendant KRW 3,255,636, and the Plaintiff.

The reason why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the defendant's appeal (the disciplinary action in this case is null and void) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The Plaintiff’s assertion on the Plaintiff’s claim for wage payment added in the trial at the trial was to pay “100% of monthly salary” to his employees as annual bonus at the end of 2017. The instant case’s maintenance expense of KRW 700,000 falls under “benefit” and thus, the Plaintiff ought to additionally pay KRW 700,000 as annual bonus at the end of 2017.

In addition, the Defendant paid the amount of wages of KRW 3,466,350 as stated in the Nos. 2 through 6 of the unpaid statement as the grounds for the instant disciplinary action that is null and void, and thus, the Defendant should also pay to the Plaintiff.

(1) The term "unpaid detailed statement" unit: (a) the unpaid amount of the amount of the money to be paid in the sequence 13,271,271,810 2,571,810,700,002 as the end of the year 2017 bonus 3,271,810 2,7710 2,779,275 492,5353 2,201,00 667,000 333,000 3,000 3,271,810 1,916,90 1,354, 910 5, 8710, 710, 14, 5714, 578, 2063, 206, 167, 2085, 206, 365, 2018.

However, according to the evidence No. 35, the Defendant’s decision to pay the amount equivalent to “10% of monthly salary” as of the end of 2017, as seen earlier, is recognized.

However, the annual end bonus is not a “legal allowance” as provided in the Labor Standards Act, and is a “agreement allowance” which is paid in accordance with an agreement between labor and management or the employer. With respect to an agreement allowance, it is valid not by the “wages” under the Labor Standards Act, but by considering only a part of it as the basis for the calculation

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 5. 5.