All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s bonus paid only to workers employed on the monthly payment date under each of the instant wage agreements was lacking fixedness, and thus, did not constitute ordinary wages.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ordinary wages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the meals provided in kind by the Defendant for the welfare of workers are offered for the welfare of workers, and it does not constitute ordinary wages, because it is difficult to view the meals provided in kind as the remuneration for labor, in such a way that the Defendant issues a

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on ordinary wages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

A. The issue of whether a holiday is determined shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the language and text of the provisions related to holidays in a collective agreement or employment rules, as well as the background leading up to such provisions, the regulatory system and practices regarding working hours in the same industry as the relevant workplace, the name and amount of wages actually paid, the method of calculating the amount of payment, etc., as well as the weekly paid holiday work under Article 55 of the former Labor Standards Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da14089, May 14, 1991).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da9704, 2016Da9711, August 14, 2019, etc.).