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

2. The plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party B among the lawsuit of this case.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the underlying facts is as follows: “Plaintiff B” is dismissed as “Appointed B” in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; “Plaintiffs” in the second part of the judgment of the first instance as “Plaintiffs (Appointed Party) and Appointed B (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.”); and “Plaintiffs, etc.” in the second part of the judgment of the first instance as “Plaintiffs, etc.”; and “Defendant 10, Dec. 10, 2012” in the fourth and sixth part as “F December 12, 2012,” respectively, and therefore, it is identical to the part “1. Basic Facts” in the main part of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the lawsuit of this case that the plaintiff et al. did not pay bonuses on the grounds that the defendant did not pay production allowances, work allowances, good faith encouragement allowances, and full-time allowance for the period during which the plaintiff et al. did not work due to traffic accidents or the use of annual leave, etc., on the grounds that the defendant did not pay bonuses on the grounds that the defendant did not work for less than the number of actual working days under the labor contract violates the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Labor Standards Act and the Minimum Wage Act that guarantee annual leave, and that the amount of the minimum wage should be paid more than the minimum wage amount, etc., and that the lawsuit of this case brought by the plaintiff et al. against the defendant is unlawful and dismissed since the lawsuit of this case

Where a party and a lawsuit with the same subject matter of lawsuit are filed differently time, the lawsuit brought later is unlawful because it violates the principle prohibiting double lawsuit.

(Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act). In this case, the criteria for determining the previous suit and the subsequent suit will be based on the time when the lawsuit is pending, that is, after the time when the complaint or the written application for modification is served on the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da12517, 12524, Nov. 25, 1994; 2010Du7796, Nov. 29, 2012). Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 12 and 13-1 through 7, the Plaintiff, etc. is different.