(Chuncheon)2013Na1568 Wages, etc.

1. A;

2. B

3. C

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11. K;

12. L.

13. M;

14.N

15. 0

16. P;

Q. Q.

18. R

19. S;

20. Telecommunication

21. U;

22. V

23.W;

24. X

25. Y

26, Z.

27. AA

28. AB

29. AC

30. AD;

31. AE;

32. AF;

33. AG;

34. AH;

35. AI;

36. AJ

37. AK;

38. AL;

39, AM

N:

Seoul High Court Decision 200

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2011Gahap1088 Decided July 3, 2013

September 17, 2014

November 26, 2014

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1 5% interest per annum from May 1, 2011 to November 26, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The Defendant shall pay each of the following amounts as stated in the “Attachment 3” column to the Plaintiffs, and each of them shall be 5% per annum from November 28, 2013 to November 26, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

C. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 70% of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

3. The part ordering a payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from May 1, 2011 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount stated in attached Form 2's "amount of unpaid bonus" and each of them at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the application for amendment of the claim dated November 21, 2013 to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff extended the purport of this part in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The judgment ordering additional payment of the difference between the claim amount of the claim and the amount of the used amount which is the judgment of the court of

1. Status of parties concerned, terms and conditions of wages payment;

A. The defendant is a corporation that operates passenger transport service, etc., and the plaintiffs are drivers employed by the defendant who provide their labor to the defendant.

B. The Korean Automobile Trade Union Federation's Gangwon-gu branch of the Korea Automobile Union, to which the Plaintiffs belong, concluded a collective agreement with the Defendant, which includes the following contents, and agreed on the wage table.

On September 9, 2010, a collective agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "collective agreement of 2010") provides for work hours and holidays in Chapter III, Article 16 (Number of Work Days and Work Hours) (1) working hours for large-time transportation workers, regardless of the length of work on board each 30 minutes, basic work on board, overtime work, waiting time to work on board (work on board) and the company shall not extend work hours at will on any one-time basis. (2) The number of monthly work hours shall be 16 full-time work hours; (3) the number of weekly work hours shall be determined as 8 hours for basic work, 6 hours for overtime; (4) the total number of weekly work hours for which wages shall be paid by the company for additional work hours to 2) the total number of weekly work hours per week; (4) the number of weekly work hours during which wages shall be paid by other than the average number of weekly work hours; and (3) the total number of weekly work hours during which wages shall be paid by other than the prescribed number of weekly work hours.

(4) Article 42 (3), (c) and (d) shall be paid an additional allowance of 50%. Article 48 (one driving allowance for 1) shall be paid, and a single door allowance for 3 years shall be determined by a labor-management agreement for 40 x 20 days before and after the end of each quarter (3,6, 9, and 12 months) x 40 x 40 x 10 x 3 months after the end of each quarter (this month shall be paid as current; 20 x 3 months after the end of each quarter); 40 x 10 x 40 x 6 x 9 x 10 x 4 months after the end of each quarter (this month shall be paid as wages).

6. Legal leave allowance: (33, 104 x 16 days) 】 150/10: 12 = 66,208 Won: 1,00 x 16 days = 16,00 x 16 days + 264 won + 16,264 won = 16,520 x 16,520 x 8418. Non-ordinary wage allowance: 9,00 won for continuous service allowance, 12,00 won for CCTV allowance per one year, and 1,00 won for non-accident allowance per year;

C. The amount of the basic salary of the plaintiffs as the basis for the calculation of the basic salary is as follows for each period.

1

A person shall be appointed.

D. The Defendant paid the Plaintiffs with overtime allowance, night work allowance, weekly holiday work allowance, holiday work allowance, and holiday work allowance (hereinafter “all kinds of allowances”) for continuous service as prescribed in the instant collective agreement and wage table. The Defendant paid the Plaintiffs a closed-circuit television (CCTV) and even door allowance for continuous service as prescribed in the instant wage agreement and wage table. It did not include it in ordinary wages but has calculated and paid overtime work allowance, night work allowance, weekly work allowance, holiday work allowance, and holiday work allowance (hereinafter “all kinds of allowances”). The Defendant did not dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, 7, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 14-1 through 8, and Eul evidence 14.

2. Claims: The descriptions of evidence 23, evidence 33-16, 17, and 18-18, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The Defendant recognized the extended working hours of six hours pursuant to the instant collective agreement and the wage table, and paid overtime allowances accordingly. As such, the extended working hours of six hours under the instant collective agreement and the wage table do not reach the actual overtime working hours of the Plaintiffs, the part regarding which the extended working hours are set as six hours is null and void as it violates the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to calculate overtime allowances for the entire 8 hours and 19 minutes ( = average working hours of 15 hours and 19 minutes ( = 8 hours and 19 minutes on average working hours during which operation was completed from the start of the start of the start of the start of the start of the start of the start of the start of the start of the start of the work + 30 minutes after the start of the start of the work) and pay the remaining amount

(2) The defendant calculated ordinary wages without including continuous service allowances, closed-circuit allowances, even door allowances, and bonuses. These allowances and bonuses constitute a fixed wage paid periodically or uniformly, which constitutes ordinary wages, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the amount of various allowances already paid and the amount of various allowances already paid after re-determination of ordinary wages, including them, to the plaintiffs.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) The collective agreement of this case and the wage table of this case are the result that the defendant and the plaintiffs agreed to apply the total working hours at a daily rate in order to avoid the diversification of the calculation of individual working hours, and such agreement is not less favorable to the plaintiffs, and thus, it is valid as a comprehensive wage agreement.

(2) The provisions of the collective agreement that recognize 30 minutes before and after the commencement of the operation as working hours have already been stipulated as working hours. As such, the preparatory time before and after the operation should be recognized as working hours as much as the plaintiffs actually worked.

(3) The plaintiffs cannot be deemed as working hours all the hours waiting for a garage or a garage without actual operation, and the daily average of 30 minutes per 4-hour work hours guaranteed under the Labor Standards Act (30 minutes per 4-hour work, and the time calculated based on the aforementioned 15-hour work hours and 19-minutes) should be deemed as recess hours.

(4) Continuous work allowances, closed-circuit allowances, even door allowances, and bonuses are paid according to the plaintiffs' work performance, and it is difficult to view them as ordinary wages, and even if they are family ordinary wages, the hourly ordinary wages should be calculated according to the method that each party is divided by the number of hours, including both extension and night work hours in consideration of each additional rate, and the total number of hours during the standard work hours.

A. Whether an agreement on the inclusive wage was concluded

In principle, an employer shall determine the basic wage of the relevant employee and calculate and pay various allowances based on the determination of the relevant employee’s basic wage. However, even if the basic wage was not calculated in advance and determined as a monthly wage or daily wage, or the basic wage was determined as an allowance and paid a certain amount per month as various allowances, even if a labor contract or collective agreement was concluded by the so-called comprehensive wage system, it is valid unless it is paid to an employee, including working conditions that do not meet the standards set by the Labor Standards Act.

However, whether the agreement on the inclusive wage is effective should be determined specifically and individually by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as working hours, form and nature of work, unit of 11 wage 1 calculation, contents of collective agreement and rules of employment, and actual condition of the same workplace, etc. In an individual case, even if it is possible to expect extension, night, and holiday work as a matter of course in light of the form of work or nature of work, the case where a collective agreement, rules of employment, provision of salary, etc. provides for the payment of overtime, night, holiday work allowances, etc. separately from basic pay as detailed items, does not constitute the inclusive wage system, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement on the inclusive wage system as above, on the ground that there was an agreement on overtime hours exceeding a certain working hours in a collective agreement, etc., or that there was an agreement on the rate of wage increase based on the amount including allowances in basic pay, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da91046, Oct. 3, 2012>

According to the above facts, the collective agreement and wage table of this case classify workers' wages into basic wages, bonuses, and allowances, and calculates wages by adding the amount calculated by applying the hourly rate and premium rate to the working days for each item as the starting point of the hourly concept. In light of the above legal principles, the fact that the plaintiffs agreed on the collective agreement of this case and the wage table with the defendant cannot be deemed to have agreed on the inclusive wage system. Other intentional assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiffs' actual extension work hours

(1) The plaintiffs' operating hours

The fact that the plaintiffs suffered an average of 15 hours and 19 minutes from the start of operation to the completion of operation does not dispute the parties.

(2) As to 30 minutes before and after operation

Article 16 (1) of the collective agreement of this case provides that "working hours shall be deemed work hours regardless of all lengths, such as the 30 minutes, basic work, overtime work, and waiting time for work on board (work on board) at the time of the service on board," as seen earlier. In addition to the circumstances such as that the plaintiffs' inspection of buses to be operated prior to the starting time in order to operate buses in accordance with the table of dispatch hours, and that a certain degree of time is deemed necessary for parking and washing of buses after the arrival of the company, the 30 minutes each before and after the operation on board shall be deemed the working hours of the plaintiffs.

(2) As to the waiting time between operation

Work hours under the Labor Standards Act refer to the hours during which an employee is under the direction and supervision of the employer and provides labor under a labor contract. The waiting time, rest time, and sleep time, etc., which the employee was not actually engaged in the work during the working hours, is not guaranteed to the employee free use as a rest time, but is actually under the employer’s direction and supervision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da41990, Nov. 23, 2006).

Examining the following facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, and 10-1 through 36, 11-1 through 36, Eul evidence Nos. 9, 10-2, 12, 13-1, 15-1, 2, 15-2, 19-1, 20-1 through 12, 25-2, and 4-1 through 4-4 of evidence Nos. 4, and the testimony and arguments of the witness AC of the trial, among the time waiting for the bus operation of the plaintiffs in the middle of the bus operation, it is reasonable to determine the remaining hours of recess, but it is reasonable to determine the hours of recess.

(A) The Plaintiffs waiting to attract more than 3 hours and 51 minutes in total an average of 1 day in the middle of the operation of each route.

(B) While not operating a vehicle, the Plaintiffs filled compressed natural gas (CNG gas) at least once a day and twice a day, cleaned air conditioners and air conditioners, and clean the inside and outside of the vehicle directly. In addition, the vehicles need to be maintained on a regular basis, such as detailed, lubing, lubing, lubing engine, lubing, and air condition stop exchanges. In such a case, the Plaintiffs were waiting in the place during the waiting time while moving the vehicle to the Sejong General or the luxator, cleaning or maintaining the vehicle, and the Plaintiffs were also assisting the maintenance work.

(C) If there is traffic congestion due to rain or snow, the route was delayed than that set forth in the allocation schedule, and in such a case, the Plaintiffs immediately left the next route without waiting time. In addition, if the vehicle fails to return to a garage due to traffic accident in the city, the vehicle was on the lending operation.

(D) On the other hand, on the other hand, the three-day car was 4 days, the cleaning was 10 days, and the maintenance was sporadicly conducted 3-4 times a year 1 to 3-4 times a year, and the time required therefor was not far. In addition, the inside cleaning and cleaning of the vehicle was a separate service employee, and the vehicle maintenance was basically a maintenance employee.

(D) The Plaintiffs, as they operated a vehicle in accordance with the fixed time table, could have predicted waiting time by replacement, had been engaged in meals or water surface while waiting at the garage or the seat of the vehicle, and did not undergo any particular restrictions even when going out of the vehicle.

(E) In the event that the operation of routes is delayed due to the traffic conditions of Chuncheon, the boom booming expenses did not frequently take place outside some hours.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the actual overtime hours of the plaintiffs are 6 hours and 49 minutes per day ( = average hours from the start date of operation to the start date of operation + 15 hours and 19 minutes before and after operation + 30 minutes before and after operation + 1 hours and 30 minutes between the start date - 8 hours per day pursuant to the collective agreement of this case and the wage table, and the plaintiffs were paid only six hours per day pursuant to the standard work hours. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay overtime allowances corresponding to 49 minutes per day exceeding the above 6 hours, and the specific time period is as stated in the aggregate column of "the calculation details of extended work allowances" in attached Table 3. [Calculation formula: Si rate x 16 days x 1.5 x 1.5 x 5].

C. Whether it constitutes ordinary wages, such as continuous service allowances

(1) Standard for determining ordinary wages

Whether a certain wage falls under ordinary wages shall be determined based on whether the wage is money or valuables paid periodically, uniformly, and fixedly to workers as consideration for contractual work, according to its objective nature, and it shall not be determined based on formal standards, such as the name of the wage or the length of the payment cycle.

A certain wage means that a regular wage should be paid at a certain interval for a certain period of time. Where a regular wage with the nature of ordinary wage is paid periodically for more than one month, it is paid in installments at an interval of more than one month according to the labor-management agreement, etc., and it is clear that the wage itself does not lose the quality of the fixed work or lose the regular wage. Therefore, in the case of a wage paid at a certain period of time such as a regular bonus, it cannot be said that the regular wage is not a ordinary wage solely on the ground that the payment period exceeds one month.

In order for a certain wage to belong to ordinary wages, it must be paid in a uniform manner."Modern payment should be paid not only to all workers, but also to all workers who meet certain conditions or standards. In light of the concept of ordinary wages that intend to calculate fixed and average amount of money, it is not only to this fixed term.

In order for a certain wage to belong to ordinary wages, it must be paid fixedly. The term "highness" refers to the nature of the wage that is naturally agreed to be paid with respect to the work provided by an employee, regardless of its achievements, achievements, and other additional conditions, and the term "fixed wages" refers to the minimum wage that is reasonable and conclusive as consideration for the daily work even if the worker retires from his/her office on the next day, regardless of its name.

Since ordinary wages are an instrument concept as prescribed by the Act to establish the standard of working conditions, it is not a question that employers and workers may agree separately on the meaning, scope, etc. of ordinary wages under the collective agreement, etc. Therefore, in light of the nature of the standard expressed earlier, even if labor and management agreed to exclude wages belonging to ordinary wages from ordinary wages under the Labor Standards Act, such agreement has no effect (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da89399, Dec. 12, 2013).

(2) Determination by item

(a)a continuous service allowance;

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, pursuant to the collective agreement and wage table of this case, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant paid the plaintiffs with continuous service allowances of KRW 7,000 per month from August 1, 2007 to July 31, 2009 and KRW 9,000 per month from August 1, 2009 to July 31, 2011. This constitutes ordinary wages because it is a fixed wage paid periodically and uniformly each month, regardless of service performance.

(B) A closed-circuit allowance.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant paid closed-circuit allowances of 12,000 won per day to the plaintiffs pursuant to the collective agreement and wage table of this case. This is a fixed wage that has been paid periodically and uniformly each month, regardless of work performance, and it constitutes ordinary wages (the defendant is paid on condition that the closed-circuit allowances work for 14 hours per day shall work for 14 hours per day. Thus, even according to the defendant's argument, it cannot be viewed as a fixed wage. However, even according to the defendant's argument, the closed-circuit allowances constitute ordinary wages, which constitutes money and valuables agreed to be paid for work provided by the worker for 14 hours per day, which are prescribed in the collective agreement of this case

According to the statement in Eul evidence 2, it can be recognized that the Korea Transport Union and the defendant agreed not to include closed-circuit allowances in ordinary wages. However, as seen earlier, the labor and management agreed to exclude the wages belonging to ordinary wages from ordinary wages in light of the nature of the above, it cannot be deemed that the above agreement alone does not constitute ordinary wages.

(C) A door even allowance

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, the defendant can recognize the fact that he paid even allowances of 1,00 won per day to the plaintiffs pursuant to the collective agreement and wage table of this case. This constitutes ordinary wages inasmuch as it is a fixed wage paid periodically and uniformly each month, regardless of work performance, regardless of whether it is work performance (the defendant is paid under the condition that even though even allowances are paid under the condition that two-thirds of work hours per day work hours work hours be worked, it cannot be viewed as wages with fixedness. However, even according to the defendant's assertion, even though according to the defendant's assertion, even allowances constitute ordinary wages, which constitutes money and valuables under the agreement that the worker would normally pay for work hours, and thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit).

(d) bonus; and

With respect to bonuses from October 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012, a collective agreement in 2010 shall be paid at least 185% a year of ordinary wages in installments on the last day of each quarter (3, 6, 9, and 12), and shall be paid in installments according to the number of months during which one year begins, and shall not be paid in one month, and the collective agreement in 200% a year of ordinary wages as of the last day of each quarter (3, 6, 9, and 12) shall be paid in installments on the bonus from January 1, 2013, and a person who falls short of 48 days a year of ordinary wages as of the last day of each quarter (48 days) shall be paid in installments according to the rate of working days, and a person who is less than six months after being employed as a new employee from the year 2013 to his/her new employee shall be excluded, and a person who is less than six months shall be paid in six months thereafter.

The defendant asserts that the collective agreement of this case does not pay bonus to a person whose continuous service period is less than 1 month or less than 6 months, and that the bonus shall be differentiated according to the number of months of continuous service to such person. The collective agreement of 2012 stipulates that bonus shall be paid differently depending on the number of working days if the date of quarterly service falls short of 48 days, the collective agreement of 2012 provides that bonus shall be paid differently depending on the number of working days, the total amount of wages, continuous service allowances, accident accident allowances when all the 16th day of each month work is calculated, the bonus shall not be paid to a retired worker as of the payment date of bonus, the payment date of bonus is a member who retires or is not a member of the company.

However, even though the collective agreement of this case discriminates on whether to pay bonuses or not according to the continuous service period, so long as the collective agreement of this case provides that bonuses shall be calculated on a daily or monthly basis according to the actual service period or the service period, such bonuses may be recognized as "one-day rate, which is the requirement of ordinary wages, since all workers who meet certain conditions or standards are paid to them." It can be recognized as "highness" as it constitutes a case where the achievement of the collective agreement is added on the basis of facts of the past where it has been finally determined at the relevant time (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da94643, Dec. 18, 2013). In addition, even if the defendant calculated the payment criteria of bonuses, even if the defendant has been added with the calculation of the payment criteria of bonuses, it shall be deemed as having no ground to view it as such under the collective agreement of this case, and it shall be deemed as having been paid at least 10% of ordinary wages per annum from 2013 to 18.15).

Meanwhile, according to the testimony of Eul evidence 24-1 to 14, 33-1 to 18-18, and witness AC, the defendant may recognize that some retired workers did not pay bonuses to the witness during the quarter. However, there is no provision to link the contents of the labor agreement in this case with the existence of an employee. To ensure that a specific practice of an enterprise is the content of a labor contract, it should be clearly approved as a normative fact that regulates a labor relationship in general from an enterprise, or that it is naturally accepted as a result of the employee’s objection, and it should be sufficient that the employee’s actual system has been established inside the enterprise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109531, Feb. 27, 2014). It is difficult to deem that the employee did not unilaterally expressly express his/her intent to waive the payment of bonuses to the employee’s first class of wages, and that the employee did not have any other duty to pay bonuses to the employee without any particular objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200198Da1698).

In addition, according to the evidence No. 1 and No. 22 of the collective agreement of this case, Article 2 of the collective agreement of this case provides that a driver shall join a trade union at the same time as a member of the company (one title shop), Article 4 provides that the defendant recognizes all workers, other than the employees in charge of the post, accounting, personnel management, and labor management, as a member of the trade union, and provides that all workers, other than the employees, are using the term "members", "workers," and "crew," without any specific distinction. Thus, even if the collective agreement of this case provides that "members as members of the union" as a member of the union at the time of the payment of bonus, it cannot be understood that the condition that a driver shall be qualified as a member of the union at the time of the payment of bonus cannot be viewed as a condition that the bonus does not constitute ordinary wages.

Therefore, bonuses are also fixed wages that are regularly and uniformly paid every month, regardless of work performance, regardless of whether they are ordinary wages.

D. Calculation of various allowances to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff

(1) Calculation Criteria

According to Article 6(2)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20142, Jun. 29, 2007), when the amount of monthly ordinary wages is converted into hourly ordinary wages, the amount shall be calculated by dividing that amount by the standard number of hours for calculation of monthly ordinary wages (one-year average number of hours multiplied by the standard number of hours for calculation of weekly ordinary wages, divided by 12). Thus, in order to calculate hourly ordinary wages, the ordinary wages shall be first determined. However, in cases where an employee pays a fixed number of hours for contractual work exceeding the standard number of hours under the former Labor Standards Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8372, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act”), if it is difficult to determine that the fixed number of hours for night work exceeds the standard number of hours for paid hours under the said Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da5372, Apr. 11, 2007).

According to this case, the total working hours for the calculation of the hourly ordinary wages determined in the form of a monthly salary = 35.6 hours [ = 128 hours as of the base working hours ( = 8 hours X 16 hours x 1.5 hours) + 16 hours as of the night working hours ( = 2 hours x 16 days x 0.5 hours) + 51.6 hours as of the weekly working hours (=8 hours x average number of 4.3 hours per month x 1.5 hours per month, hereinafter the same shall apply) + 16 hours as of the weekly working hours x 16 hours on holidays (= X 16 hours on December 5) + 2 hours as average working hours on holidays x 5 hours per month x 16 hours under the provisions of Article 23 of the instant collective agreement.

③ In addition, when the plaintiffs' actual monthly overtime, night work hours, weekly work hours, and work hours on public holidays are added by the additional rates thereof, 247.2 hours [ = 163.6 hours extended hours ( = 6 hours and 49 minutes x 16 days x 1.5 x 1.5) + 16 hours at night ( = 2 hours x 16 days x 16 days x 16 days x 51.6 hours at weekly work ( = average 4.3 hours per month x 1.5) + 16 hours at weekly work hours x 8 hours x 8 hours (average holiday 16 days x 5 December) x 5].

(2) Continuous service allowances;

When converting the monthly continuous service allowance into the hourly ordinary wage, 19.6 won until July 31, 2009 ( = 355.6 hours for monthly continuous service allowance, minority number, 25.6 hours, and 25.3 won from August 1, 2009 to April 30, 201 ( = 9,000 won per monthly continuous service allowance, 35.6 hours: 25.3 hours x 25.3 hours x 247.2 hours x 247.2 hours x 4 years x 4 years ; hereinafter the same shall apply). Since the monthly ordinary wage to be paid by the defendant as a result of inclusion of continuous service allowance into the hourly ordinary wage, the defendant calculated the monthly ordinary wage as the basis for each month's annual ordinary wage and the monthly ordinary wage as the basis for each month's annual average wage as the basis for each month's total number of months and each year's average wage as the basis for each month's total number of months.

(3) A closed-circuit allowance

When a closed-circuit allowance determined in the form of daily wage is converted into an hourly ordinary wage, 540.5 won ( = 12,00 won). A closed-circuit allowance to be paid by the defendant as a result of inclusion of a closed-circuit allowance into ordinary wage is "540.5 won x 247.2 hours". The detailed calculation details are as follows: "closed-circuit allowance" in attached Table 5.

(4) A door even allowance

If even though a door-based allowance determined in the form of daily wage is converted into the hourly ordinary wage, it is 45 won ( = 1,00 won: 22.2 hours), and the monthly regular wage that the defendant should pay according to the inclusion of even even though an allowance in the ordinary wage is included in the ordinary wage, is 45 won x 247.2 hours, and the detailed calculation details are as stated in the separate sheet 6's even number allowance.

(4) Bonuses;

The hourly rate of ordinary wages for a certain period other than a day, week, or month is calculated in accordance with the calculation method of a monthly rate of pay. Therefore, the instant bonus, which is prescribed to be paid quarterly, is first calculated in accordance with the calculation method of a monthly rate of pay (Article 6(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act), and the amount of annual bonus based on the hourly rate of pay for the pertinent period, is calculated based on the hourly rate of pay for the pertinent period (the same shall apply from August 1 of each year to July 31 of the following year) and is divided by 12, and then the hourly rate of ordinary wages determined in the aforementioned monthly rate shall be calculated in accordance with the calculation method.

Specific calculation details are the same as the "total sum of the converted bonuses" in attached Form 6, and since the amount ordered to be paid cannot exceed the scope of the plaintiff's claim out of the above amount, it is the same as the "amount of figures" in attached Form 6.

4. Conclusion

Since May 1, 2011, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount stated in the separate sheet 8'a total of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'value of the 'the 'the 'for each plaintiff', and the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ''' of the 'the 'the '' of the 'the 'the 'for each plaintiff', and the 'the 'the '' obligation to pay the 's 'if the 's 'the '' has occurred after the 's obligation to pay the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '' judgment' from May 1, 2011 to November 26, 2014, the defendant is obligated to pay the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 's bonus' to the '.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition and the remainder shall be dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the incidental appeal of the plaintiffs and the defendant's partial appeal shall be accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as per Disposition.

First Instance (Presiding Judge)

Kim Jong-tae

Sym

Attached Table 1

Details of total unpaid wages

Attached Form 2.

Details of unpaid bonuses

(Elimination of Unpaid Amount of Bonuses) Attached Form 3

Details of calculation of overtime allowances;

(Elimination of Calculation of Extended Labor Allowances) Attached Form 4

Details of calculation of continuous service allowances;

(Elimination of Calculation Details of Continuous Allowances)

Attached Table 5

Details of calculation of closed-circuit allowances

(Elimination of Calculation Details of Closed-circuit Allowances) Attached 6

Details of calculation of an even number of allowances

(A) The calculation details of even if allowances are calculated)

Attached Table 7

Details of calculation of bonuses;

(Elimination of Calculation Details of Bonuses)

Attached Table 8

Details of award by plaintiff

(Elimination of Quotations by Plaintiffs)