All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs, Article 5(1)2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Minimum Wage Act provides that the amount calculated by dividing the wages determined on a weekly or monthly basis by the “number of contractual work hours per week or per month” shall be the hourly wage.

However, the so-called weekly holiday allowances, which are wages for paid holidays paid in the weekly wage system or monthly wage system, are wages paid periodically not less than once a month for the prescribed work, so the comparative wage should be added in calculating the comparable wage. In addition to the weekly holiday allowances, there is no need to consider the working hours related to the weekly holiday allowances in calculating the weekly or monthly wage as the hourly wage, and thus, the “working hours per week or per month” referred to in this context refers to the working hours as prescribed in Article 2(1)7 of the Labor Standards Act, and this cannot be the same as the “working hours per week or per month ordinary wage calculation hours calculated in accordance with Article 6(2)3 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act.”

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64245 Decided January 11, 2007). The lower court determined as stated in its reasoning that, when converting the basic salary (including weekly leave allowances), continuous service allowances, allowances for work on board, and bonuses (monthly installments) paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs on a monthly basis into the hourly wage, the calculation should be based on the 191.2 hours (one week 44 hours ± (365 days ± 12 months ± 7 days), which are the monthly contractual work hours. (See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64245 Decided January 11, 207).

Examining the record, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable as it is in accordance with the above legal principles.

In doing so, there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles on weekly holiday allowances or contractual work hours.

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court is so decided as per Disposition.