1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the Defendant calculated hourly ordinary wages only on the basis of the allowances included in the scope of ordinary wages as stipulated in the collective agreement and wage agreement, and paid the instant statutory allowances to the Plaintiffs.

However, the plaintiffs of long-term continuous service allowances, ② meal expenses, ③ transport subsidies, ④ specific business allowances, ⑤ treatment allowances, ② welfare points, and ② incentives, performance allowances, and evaluation level are different allowances to the effect that each of the above allowances constitutes ordinary wages.

However,

2.(c)

7) As stated in the Defendant’s remuneration regulations, there is no allowance under the name of “inteitive performance rating (2014, 2015)” and “inteitive performance rating (2016, 2017)” other than “inteitive performance rating (2016, 2017),” and there is no allowance under the name of “inteitive performance rating or self-evaluation grade.” The Defendant’s remuneration regulations comprehensively consider the basic payment rate and self-evaluation rate according to the management evaluation in order to calculate the specific payment rate of incentives performance rating and evaluation grade, and do not separate the basic payment rate and self-evaluation rate according to the management evaluation from the final determined payment rate. Accordingly, the allowances disputing the applicability of ordinary wages are determined by taking account of the basic payment rate following the management evaluation and the self-evaluation rate (hereinafter “each of the instant allowances”).

Do. As such, the Defendant constitutes ordinary wages, including each of the instant allowances, calculated again the hourly ordinary wages, and based on such calculation, the unpaid amount and damages for delay from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2017.