1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall set forth the attached Table 1 of the cited amount for the unpaid wages to the plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the facts is as stated in the corresponding column of “1. Basic Facts” among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of each of the following parts among the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, this Court shall accept it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

- The following - The 3rd 3rd 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 5th 10th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 10th 8th 8th 6th 7th 6th 7th 6th 600 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 600 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 10.

From July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2009 (the second month shall provide labor for not less than 24 days, from July 1, 2009 to provide labor for not less than 24 days per month, and from July 1, 2009 to a driver who has worked in excess of the above full-time days, 50/100 of ordinary wages shall be paid in addition to the ordinary wages.

The Defendant paid 3,500 won per day to all drivers, including the Plaintiffs, in the name of welfare expenses prescribed by the instant collective agreement and wage agreement, for the purpose of “in the city of Si” of the 10th page 12, and the 12th page 8 through 12, and the Defendant paid 3,500 won per day and 1,500 won per day to all drivers including the Plaintiffs.

2. The reasoning of the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is that “CCTV’s Allowance and driver’s mutual-aid association fee” is the same as “CCTV’s allowance” in the first instance judgment, except for the case where “CCTV’s allowance and driver’s mutual-aid association fee” in Articles 13 through 18, 17, and 14, of the first instance judgment, is the same as that of “CCTV’s allowance.”