1. The appeal against the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

2. Expenses for an appeal against a counterclaim;

1. The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the defendant's counterclaim by partially citing the plaintiffs' main claim and rejecting the defendant's counterclaim.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs appealed only against the principal lawsuit, and the defendant appealed only against the counterclaim, and the plaintiffs' appeal against the principal lawsuit was deemed to have not been filed from the beginning with respect to the principal lawsuit which was withdrawn from the principal lawsuit during the progress of the trial.

(2) Articles 393(2) and 267(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, even in a case where the part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment was transferred to the trial court, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part concerning the defendant’s counterclaim claim (for the same reason, this court does not decide separately on the legitimacy of the parties’ assertion as to the claim of the principal lawsuit). 2. The reason why the court should explain this part of the facts recognized is the same as the corresponding part in the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Collective Agreement and Reference Materials for the Compilation of Budget for Environmental Unified Institute Personnel Expenses (hereinafter “Guideline of the Ministry of the Interior”).

(3) The Defendant and the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “workers”), including the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, provide that the daily amount of ordinary wages applied to the holiday work allowance is limited to the amount set by the collective agreement.

(2) There is no agreement between the Plaintiffs’ holiday work hours to pay the 8-day holiday work hours regardless of actual holiday work hours. However, even though the Plaintiffs’ holiday work hours from February 2009 to December 201, 300, 4 hours and 30-day per day from February 201, 201, and 5 hours per day from February 2009 to December 201, the Defendant erroneously paid the Plaintiff’s holiday work hours exceeding the actual working hours from February 2009 to December 201, and from October 201, the Defendant erroneously paid the Plaintiff’s holiday work hours exceeding the actual working hours from February 200 to October 201.