All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the dismissal of the plaintiffs of this case against the plaintiffs was made by the disciplinary committee held after the time limit for holding the disciplinary committee prescribed in the collective agreement, and thus, the procedural provisions are invalid due to the defects in violation of the procedural regulations. On the other hand, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's assertion that the time when such circumstances cease to exist, should be the starting point for the commencement of the disciplinary committee within the time limit prescribed in the collective agreement is insufficient

The judgment below

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

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court calculated the Plaintiffs’ unpaid wages during the period of unfair dismissal based on the contractual work hours under the previous wage agreement, on the ground that the part regarding the reduction of contractual work hours under the instant agreement and the subsequent wage agreement constitutes an evasion of the law to circumvent the application of the Minimum Wage Act, which is a mandatory law, in a situation where there is no change in the working environment or operating hours, and thus, such part constitutes an evasion

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of wage agreements, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court cited the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and sought payment of unpaid wages during the period of unfair dismissal based on the contractual work hours under the previous wage agreement.