1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, while serving as the Defendant’s employee, are each retired workers as of December 31, 201 or December 31, 2012.

B. The Defendant newly established a “special bonus” in the remuneration provision enacted on April 1, 1987 after the Defendant’s transfer from the Korea Resale Agency, which was the telegraphic body of the Defendant, to Korea, and began to pay the employees. The special bonus is changed from the revised remuneration provision made on June 9, 200 to the “incentive bonus” which is the current name, and has been paid to the employees under its name until now.

C. The timing and rate of payment of incentives and bonuses paid by the Defendant from 2008 to 2013 are as follows.

The annual rate of payment in the first half (second half) during the second half (second half) shall be 350% in 208, 150% in 2008, 150% in 352.52% in 2009 150% in 302.52% in 2010, 307.5% in 307.5% in 2010, 351.28% in 351.28% in 2011, 150% in 301.28% in 201.28% in 201.56% in 335.56% in 2012 15.56% in 48.56% in 2013 150% in 518.56% in 2013

D. Since the establishment of incentive bonuses under the provision on the remuneration of the Defendant on April 1, 1987, the Defendant paid incentives only to “workers who hold office on the pertinent payment base date.” The Korean Tobacco and Ginseng Trade Union and the Defendant’s employees, which were composed of the majority of the Defendant’s employees, did not raise any objection thereto.

E. The main contents of the Defendant’s remuneration regulations, enforcement rules of remuneration regulations, wage management regulations, and wage agreements are as shown in attached Form 2.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 15, 22 and 23 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. 1 The Defendant asserted that the incentive bonus is remuneration rules and the benefit management rules provide for the period and method of payment, and the Defendant’s employees have paid the incentive bonus continuously and periodically. Therefore, the incentive bonus is remuneration for work.