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 grounds of appeal on the transportation and continuous service allowances, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that the Defendant’s payment of a certain amount per day for continuous service allowances and daily transportation expenses paid to workers who have served for more than one year, including a certain amount per year for continuous service, including monthly wages, is a fixed wage which is regularly and uniformly paid regardless of their work performance.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ordinary wages

2. As to the grounds of appeal on weekly holiday allowances, Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “an employer shall grant an employee at least one paid holiday per week average,” and Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “The paid holiday under Article 55 of the Act shall be granted to a person with perfect attendance of contractual working days during a week.” This weekly holiday allowance is a wage paid by deeming that an employee is engaged in his/her work even if the employee does not actually work on the weekly holiday, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that it is an allowance calculated on the basis of ordinary wages in light of its nature.

(2) The lower court’s judgment to the same purport is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding allowances subject to ordinary wages, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the validity of interim retirement and the grounds of appeal on the deduction of unjust enrichment, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, Plaintiffs C and C.