1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims modified by this court, shall be modified as follows.

The defendant.

1. The defendant's ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is that bonuses, monthly suspension from office, and internal evaluation pay do not constitute ordinary wages.

This is not different from the argument in the first instance court, and in full view of the evidence submitted to the first instance court and this court, the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court on this issue are recognized as legitimate.

Meanwhile, although the Plaintiffs filed an appeal on the grounds that the basic welfare points constitute ordinary wages, the Plaintiffs’ claim was withdrawn in this court, and expanded the period of calculation of each of the instant allowances by including bonuses, monthly suspension of duty, and internal evaluation pay into ordinary wages.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows: (a) the part related to “basic welfare points” in the judgment of the court of first instance is deleted; and (b) the part is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows; and (c) such part is cited by the main sentence

2. The phrase "attached Form 3 through 6" in attached Form 11 shall be changed to "attached Form 4 through 6" in the part of the first instance judgment.

In the second sentence of the first instance judgment, each of the 13, 15-16, 3, 11, 6, 16, 17, 7, 1, 20, 20, 20, 13, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 3, 11, 6, 17, 7,

The third 2-9 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

The total amount of bonuses, monthly suspension from office, internal evaluation pay (hereinafter referred to as "indembiment, etc.") shall be as bonus, etc.

(1) The Defendant paid bonus, etc. to the Plaintiffs, without including bonus, etc., for a period from April 2014 to September 2019. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay each of the instant allowances, the payment of which was omitted during the period from April 2014 to September 2019, as the price for contractual work was paid regularly, uniformly, and fixed. The “evaluation” in Section 7 of the first instance judgment is deemed to be “performance”.

No. 8-18 of the first instance judgment.