1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims for extension or reduction of the plaintiffs in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. (1) The Defendant calculated holiday work allowances, night work allowances, and annual leave allowances to be paid to the Plaintiffs, based only on basic pay, special work allowances, work encouragement allowances, household allowances, fixed meal allowances, and transport support expenses (hereinafter collectively referred to as “basic pay, etc.”), excluding bonuses, but the bonuses stipulated in each of the instant wage agreements fall under ordinary wages. As such, the Defendant should additionally pay the difference between the fixed holiday work allowances, night work allowances, annual leave allowances, and regular leave allowances based on the hourly ordinary wages calculated including bonuses to the Plaintiffs.

(2) In addition, since the paid holiday work under a collective agreement, such as Saturdays, exceeds 40 hours a week in addition to holiday work allowances, since it constitutes overtime work, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiffs overtime allowance (over-time allowance) for the above part based on the above hourly ordinary wage.

(3) In the case of Plaintiffs B, F, and H, unlike the case of other Plaintiffs, the Defendant was able to work for 10 hours a day in the landfill area. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the said Plaintiffs overtime allowance (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant statutory allowances” by adding holiday work allowances, night work allowances, annual leave allowances, and overtime work allowances to the said Plaintiffs.

B. The Defendant’s bonus in this case is paid only to the employees employed by the Defendant at the time of the pertinent month, and there is no rate and fixedness required as ordinary wages due to the failure of the employee who retired before the payment. Therefore, it cannot be deemed as ordinary wages.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that the bonus in this case constitutes ordinary wages.