1. On March 11, 2016 through November 25, 2016, the Defendant against the Plaintiffs the Plaintiff’s money and each of the above money.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are those who were employed by the Defendant from January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2012 as public officials belonging to the Defendant, who were employed by the Defendant, as the public officials belonging to the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiffs, during the above period, worked in excess of the fixed-amount payment, and received overtime work allowances for more than 4 hours a day or not less than 57 hours a month pursuant to the order of service.

C. On June 5, 2012, the Defendant had an audit of the unfair receipt of overtime work allowances, which is the Defendant’s employee. Based on the audit result, the Defendant could not pay overtime work allowances exceeding the hours specified in the above paragraph if it is not the present employee in accordance with the guidelines for handling local public officials’ remuneration, etc., the budget compilation operation standards, and the fund operation plan, and the Plaintiffs cannot receive overtime work allowances exceeding the hours specified in the above paragraph as the present employee, because they are not the present employee, and the Plaintiffs cannot receive overtime work allowances exceeding the hours specified in the above paragraph. Based on the fact that the Defendant instructed the Plaintiffs, etc. to take measures, such as the recovery of overtime work allowances, etc., the Defendant issued an audit order on the above disposition order with the exception of the Plaintiff G, but the application for review was dismissed on August 29, 2012.

On October 8, 2012, Article 87 of the Local Finance Act and Articles 111, 112, and 113 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act, the Defendant notified an affiliated agency of the policy to return unjust enrichment, such as ordering the person subject to the return of overtime work allowances, to notify the person subject to the return of payment, and decided to collect the amount to be collected as non-tax revenue on October 19, 2012, and issued a notice of payment on November 2012.

E. After that, the Plaintiffs returned to the Defendant each of the money stated in the attached Form column for attached hereto, corresponding to overtime work allowances exceeding the hours set forth in the above Paragraph (b) out of the overtime work allowances paid.

The amount of overtime work allowance that was returned is the amount claimed by the plaintiffs.