Plaintiff 1 and 28 others (Attorney Lee In-he et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Human Resources Development Service (Law Firm Han-ro, Attorneys Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 14, 2012

1. It is confirmed that the plaintiffs are in the position of each class worker listed in the attached Table 1 of Grade 6 of the defendant general office position.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs 20% interest per annum from March 23, 2011 to the day of complete payment with respect to each of the above amounts and each of the above amounts listed in the separate sheet 2.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

Based on the Korea Manpower Agency Act, the defendant is a company that performs business related to the support for lifelong learning of workers, the conduct of workplace skill development training, the qualification examination, the encouragement of skills, the promotion of employment, etc., and the plaintiffs are employees who have entered

B. Employment experience and employment process of the plaintiffs

Many of the plaintiffs had worked for a public institution, such as a private company or employment security center of Korea Exchange Bank, etc., even before their entry. In particular, in the case of male, most of the plaintiffs have experience in military service. Since around 1999, the plaintiffs were employed as a professional or commercial employee of the defendant in the order of their employment promotion business, foreign employment support business, lifelong learning business, and overseas employment business. At the time, the plaintiffs were employed through document screening and interview, and some of them were employed through a separate written examination to measure foreign language ability. The plaintiffs, as part of the fixed-term workers, have entered into an annual employment contract with the defendant, and have been engaged in their duties by renewal each year.

(c) Working conditions;

The Defendant regulates all kinds of working conditions, such as personnel management and remuneration, for full-time workers including class 6 workers in general service under his/her jurisdiction (hereinafter “instant personnel management regulations”) and remuneration regulations (hereinafter “instant remuneration regulations”). For non-regular workers including the Plaintiffs, separate rules on the management of non-regular workers and stipulate matters necessary for personnel management and remuneration, etc. The main contents of these regulations are as follows.

Personnel Regulations (art. 1, 2006 amended on March 1, 2006)

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Act is to establish standards for personnel management of employees of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") and to ensure fair and efficient personnel management based on their abilities and performance.

Except as otherwise provided for in other internal regulations, the personnel management of personnel of Article III (Scope of Application) shall be governed by this provision.

Article 15 (New Appointment)

(1) In principle, employees shall be employed through an open competitive examination: Provided, That a special examination may be conducted where any of the following employees is employed:

(Abnormal omission)

7. Where irregular employees who work in the special business area that requires specialized knowledge, skills and experience pursuant to the provisions of Article 16 are appointed as regular employees according to the securing of relevant fixed number of employees;

(hereinafter omitted)

Article 16 (Temporary Employment)

(1) The president may, if necessary, appoint a person other than regular employees for a fixed period within budgetary limits.

(2) Other necessary matters such as appointment, dismissal, qualification criteria, employment method, remuneration, etc. of persons other than regular employees shall be determined by the president separately.

Article 42 (Period of Continuing Speedy Calculation)

(1) The period of continuous service for employees shall be counted from the first appointment date, notwithstanding the renewal of appointment contract.

(2) When a worker is appointed as a full-time employee, the period in which he/she has served as a full-time employee shall be included in the calculation period.

(3) Work experience when an employee of a school foundation is appointed as an employee of the GEPS shall be aggregated.

Attached Table 3) The conversion rate table of the employee's career year;

General Service, Research Service

2. A person who has worked for a political party, press organization or public organization on February 2, 200 not falling under subparagraph 1 of Article 1; 4. A person who has worked for a political party, a press organization or a public organization on March 30, 200 or more as a teacher in an educational institution under the Education Act; 5. A person who has worked for a government-invested or public organization on June 3, 200 or more as a teacher in an educational institution under the same Act;

Remuneration Regulations (amended on December 28, 2006)

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Article is to prescribe matters concerning the remuneration of executives and employees.

Except as otherwise provided for in Article 2 (Scope of Application), remuneration for officers and employees shall be governed by this Regulation.

Article 7 (Definition of Initial Annual Salaries)

(1) The determination of the beginning salary of an employee shall be as follows:

1. The basic annual salary for each class shall be the amount calculated by adding one (8) the number of years of conversion experience prescribed in attached Table 3 (Provided, That the person in charge of electric safety management shall be the initial salary, but the initial salary for each class shall be as follows: Provided, That with respect to the career experience of a State public official (including a military person), the initial salary class shall not apply:

The general affairs of class 1, class 1, class - class 18

The actual affairs of class 2, class 2, class - class 16,

The general affairs of class 3, class 14, - 14

The general affairs of class 4, 5, 6, researchers - 11

The actual tax rate of class 6 in general service - 20

(hereinafter omitted)

A long-term continuous service allowance may be paid to any employee who has served as an employee under Article 29 (Long-term Continuous Service Allowances) for at least five years.

Regulations on Payment of Benefits Outside the Standard (amended on March 1, 2006)

Attached Table 1) Payment of non-standard benefits

(Abnormal omission)

8. Long-term continuous service allowances;

The actual tax amount of 5 years or more: 50,000 won

The actual tax amount shall be not less than 10 years: 60,000 won

The actual tax amount shall be not less than 15 years: 80,000 won.

The actual tax amount shall be not less than 20 years: 110,000 won

The actual tax amount shall be not less than 25 years: 130,000 won.

Regulations on the Management of Non-regular Employees (amended on June 15, 2005)

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of these Rules is to prescribe necessary matters concerning personnel affairs, duties, etc. for persons other than regular employees under Article 16 of the Personnel Regulations.

Article 2 (Scope of Application) This Rule shall apply to non-regular workers, such as contractual workers and temporary workers, who are persons other than regular workers.

Article 14 (Payment of Remuneration)

1. The remuneration shall be paid monthly, and shall be the date the remuneration for regular employees is paid;

2. Where a contract officer concludes or terminates a contract in the month, the relevant monthly benefit shall be calculated by day;

3. Bonuses of contract-based employees shall be paid in accordance with the standards for payment of full-time final salary class;

4. Other matters concerning the payment method, etc. of remuneration shall correspond to regular employees, except as otherwise provided.

(d) Conversion to regular positions and the inserting of the Addenda to the Regulations on Remuneration;

1) Before and after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-term and Part-Time Workers on July 1, 2007, the government's "comprehensive measures for non-regular workers in the public sector", which is the basis of the transition of full-time workers in the public sector, became final and announced on August 2006, the Defendant also promoted the full-time conversion of the non-regular workers under its control. Accordingly, on June 30, 2007, the Defendant entered the procedure for the transition of 64 continuous employees, who have been engaged in full-time work as of the pertinent date, from among the 88 non-regular workers under its control and have been engaged in full-time work as of the pertinent date (hereinafter "the instant transition of full-time workers").

2) However, in order to alleviate the burden of increase in personnel expenses, etc. due to the occurrence of a large-scale transition of regular workers under the government policy, and to prevent the unefficiency of human resources management due to the establishment of a separate job series, the Defendant shall, instead of incorporating the full-time transition workers into class 6 of the existing general service class, prescribe a proposal to calculate the starting salary based on the remuneration that is paid to non-regular workers, instead of reflecting the previous career experience into the calculation of the starting salary, and not on the basis of the remuneration that is paid to the full-time workers, the Defendant shall receive the “written application for the conversion of class 6 of the general service class” containing the relevant contents from the Plaintiffs, and passed a resolution to revise the remuneration regulations for the Defendant at the meeting of the board of directors on September 28, 2007, and then convert the instant regular employment on the same day as approved by the Minister of Labor on October 1, 207. The modified remuneration regulations are as follows.

Remuneration Regulations (art. 1, 2007 amended)

Addenda

The provisions of Article 1 (Effective Date) shall enter into force on the date of obtaining the approval of the Minister of Labor, but shall enter into force on October 1, 2007.

Article 2 (Transitional Measures Based on Comprehensive Measures for Non-Governmental Workers in Public Sector)

(1) Notwithstanding Article 42 of the Personnel Management Regulations and Article 7 (1) of the Remuneration Regulations, the basic annual salary of an employee who is converted from a non-regular worker to a general position pursuant to the "comprehensive plan for non-regular workers in the public sector" shall be the amount calculated based on the remuneration that a non-regular employee has received during his/her service (hereinafter referred

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), with respect to a person whose current remuneration is short of the Class 6 1 of the general service, the basic annual salary for initial appointment shall be determined by the chairperson in comprehensive consideration of the current remuneration, ability to perform his/her duties, etc. In such cases, an increase of 10% or more per year shall be adjusted until he/she reaches the level of class

3) As to the above conversion of the aforementioned contents into regular workers, 60 workers filed an application for conversion, and most of them were assigned to class 1 or 4 of class 6 in general service according to the previous wage level. Some of the workers (eight persons) whose wage level at the time of non-regular employment falls short of class 1 of class 6 in general service who were converted to lower wage level at the time of non-regular employment were newly established within class 6, and were assigned class b.

(e) the class under the previous personnel and remuneration regulations and the difference of wages thereunder;

If the plaintiffs are deemed to have recognized all of the work experience before full-time conversion under the application of the instant remuneration provision before the revision, the class of class 6 in general service and the wage difference to be additionally paid therefrom are as shown in the attached Table 1 through 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 3 through 6, 12, 15, 16 through 22, 29 through 38, Eul's 1, 3 through 6 (including the number of pages) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Article 7(1) of the instant remuneration regulations and Article 2 of the Addenda thereto apply to non-regular workers, such as the Plaintiffs who are scheduled to convert into regular workers. Thus, even if the Plaintiffs were subject to separate rules on the management of non-regular workers, such fact alone cannot be said to be that the Plaintiffs are not subject to the pertinent remuneration regulations.

2) In the past, the Defendant attempted to convert the existing work experience to regular workers in accordance with the instant personnel and remuneration regulations, even though it had been included in the existing work experience according to the instant personnel and remuneration regulations, by unilateral inserting of the Addenda to the relevant remuneration regulations, in a way that does not reflect all the existing work experience with respect to the Plaintiffs. The inserting of the Addenda to the said remuneration regulations constitutes a disadvantage change in the rules of employment.

3) Although there was the consent of the plaintiffs in the process of transition to regular positions in this case, it cannot be deemed that there was a collective consent procedure merely because it was an individual consent through the preparation of a conversion application. Moreover, if the plaintiffs do not accept the exclusion of existing work experience in the said conversion process, they were forced to consent in the situation where it cannot be excluded from the procedure of conversion to regular positions, and there was the defendant's intervention and interference in the decision-making process. Therefore, even in this regard,

4) Although the Plaintiffs had been employed as non-regular workers, there is no difference in terms of job requirements or duties to justify discrimination with the existing workers in general service-grade 6, and the problem of additional budget requirements following the large-scale transition to regular workers was able to be resolved through the request of reserve funds, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to find the rationality of the terms of social norms in the amendment to the disadvantage of the instant remuneration provisions.

5) Meanwhile, the unpaid long-term continuous service allowance claimed by the Plaintiffs is not an allowance that is included in or linked to the beginning basic annual salary, and the amount of the payment changes. Thus, regardless of the validity of the amendment of the instant remuneration provision, the said remuneration provision should be paid based on the above remuneration provision.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The Plaintiffs are subject to the aforementioned rules on personnel management of non-regular workers, separate from the instant rules on personnel management and remuneration, and they were not subject to the said rules on personnel management and remuneration, and furthermore, the Plaintiffs were converted into regular workers on October 1, 2007, which was after the Defendant revised the said rules on remuneration. This constitutes a case where a new employment relationship was established after the amendment of the rules of employment, and thus there is no benefit of profit to be infringed upon due to the amendment of the rules of employment. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are in a position to accept the amended rules

2) Although the plaintiffs suffered disadvantage that is not recognized as existing career experience in the process of changing a regular position, the profits infringed upon by the plaintiffs are merely a simple expectation interest, not a gain-making profit that has already been enjoyed, and it cannot be viewed as a change in the rules of employment that requires collective consent. Furthermore, the plaintiffs should make a decision as to whether to disadvantage the plaintiffs since they obtained both a certain portion of wages, a guarantee of status guarantee, and a guarantee of opportunity for promotion, etc. due to the change of a regular position, and thus, it is unreasonable to discuss the effects of the change of disadvantage because only the pertinent provision of the remuneration provision of this case which was modified disadvantageously, is a problem.

3) Before the amendment of the instant remuneration regulations, the Defendant: (a) held an explanatory meeting prior to the amendment, sufficiently explained to the Plaintiffs the circumstances in which it was impossible to include the existing career in calculating the beginning annual salary; and (b) the Plaintiffs consented to the procedure of voluntary conversion into regular employment by comparing the disadvantages due to non-inclusion of the previous career and the benefits due to the conversion into regular employment, while being well aware thereof, which can be deemed as a valid consent in the unfavorable amendment

4) There is no difference between the plaintiffs and regular workers in working conditions based on the conditions of employment, academic background, career, etc. In addition, considering the fact that the defendant's amendment of the above provision of remuneration has been made to grant a large number of workers the benefit of conversion to regular workers to the maximum extent possible in consideration of the cost problems that may arise by converting a large number of non-regular workers into regular workers according to the limited government policy under the limited budget, and that it was not adopted to improve the working conditions of the plaintiffs, who are non-regular workers, even though they could have been able to promote the realization of the wage level compared to the budget by establishing a separate sub-occupational category as in the case of other public institutions, such as the case of other public institutions not including the plaintiffs in the existing general office position category, if they uniformly recognize the existing work experience to the plaintiffs during the transition to regular workers, there is a problem of equity in the application of the remuneration classification among the plaintiffs, and rather, it is reasonable in light of the fact that the above provision of remuneration also

3. Determination

A. Determination on the application of modified remuneration regulations

In revising the contents disadvantageously, the rules of employment, which recognize the validity of the change only by requiring the collective consent procedure of the employees under the Labor Standards Act, is sufficient to contain the contents of the working rules and working conditions to be applied uniformly to workers (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da30828, Feb. 28, 1992). Therefore, it is difficult to say that the personnel and remuneration regulations in this case do not require any separate explanation as to whether the plaintiffs who were non-regular workers belonging to the defendant constitute the rules of employment under the Labor Standards Act, and on this premise, it is problematic whether the plaintiffs who were non-regular workers belonging to the defendant are workers subject to the relevant provisions under the relevant personnel and remuneration regulations amended in addition to the rules of management of non-regular workers.

Meanwhile, even if the rules of employment that did not obtain employees' consent, the revised rules of employment shall apply to the relationship with the newly employed workers who had the labor relations by accepting the working conditions prescribed in the revised rules of employment after the revision, and it shall not be allowed to deny the validity of the revision to the newly employed workers after the revision without any grounds for exclusion of infringement of vested interests (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da45165 delivered on December 22, 1992). If it is recognized that the Plaintiffs were excluded from the subject of the regulation prior to the revision of the rules of employment, the Plaintiffs may be interpreted as not being able to dispute the amendment of the above rules of remuneration for the same reason as the newly employed workers after the amendment of the rules of employment.

However, according to the above facts, the plaintiffs were subject to separate rules on the management of non-regular workers, such as personnel and remuneration, and the defendant attempted to amend the rules of employment to exclude work experience prior to the conversion of the worker employed by the defendant to full-time workers through the inserting of the supplementary provisions to the remuneration regulations of this case, and subsequently, on October 1, 2007, the plaintiffs were subject to the revised rules of employment. However, in full view of the above facts and the purport of the evidence No. 1-2, the personnel and remuneration regulations of this case, except as otherwise provided in other internal rules, are governed by the above rules, and the management of the personnel and remuneration of the employee employed by the defendant is merely a reasonable interpretation of the above regulations on the personnel management of the worker employed by the non-regular workers, except as otherwise provided in the above provisions on the personnel management of the worker employed by the non-regular workers.

From this point of view, Article 2 of the Addenda to the above Regulations on Remuneration is provided to the purport that Article 42 (2) of the above Regulations and Article 7 (1) of the above Regulations stipulating that if a non-regular employee belonging to the defendant is converted to a full-time employee, work experience should be aggregated, and that Article 7 (1) of the above Regulations on Remuneration should not be applied to a full-time employee such as the plaintiffs. Since Article 42 (2) of the above Regulations and Article 7 (1) of the above Regulations on Remuneration are expected to be applied to the non-regular employee belonging to the defendant, it is difficult to present cases to be applied to the full-time employee belonging to the defendant, in reality, because Article 42 (1) of the above Regulations and Article 7 (1) of the above Regulations on Remuneration are expected to be applied to the non-regular employee belonging to the defendant, and it is reasonable to say that the above provisions are applied to the non-regular employee belonging to the defendant and the non-regular employee belonging to the defendant are specific and reasonable expectations. Therefore, the defendant's's assertion to exclude the above provision on remuneration provision of the plaintiffs.

B. Determination as to whether the case constitutes a disadvantage change

First of all, as to whether the Plaintiffs’ disadvantage is merely a simple expected profit and it cannot be seen as the revision of the rules of employment, the above Defendant’s assertion is likely to take into account when the effectiveness of the amended rules of employment and the relationship with the so-called new employment employee is premised, and the content of the revised rules of remuneration is not to be considered in this case, which directly applies to the Plaintiffs. This is different from that of the Labor Standards Act as to the unilateral disadvantage change on the part of the company related to the provision, such as promotion and retirement age, which exists only in the area of potential possibility for employees to whom the said rules of employment is applicable.

Next, in light of the benefits that the plaintiffs suffered upon the transition of the current regular employment, the amendment of the rules of employment should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the whole of the following factors: (a) whether the above rules of employment cannot be deemed as an unfavorable change; (b) whether there are various matters constituting one working condition under the rules of employment; and (c) if some of those matters were changed favorably to workers, the amendment should be made disadvantageously, and the whole of those matters related to the consideration or linkage should be considered (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da18072, Mar. 10, 1995, etc.). According to the above facts, Article 2 of the Addenda of the rules of employment regarding the determination of the initial annual salary, which was specially changed to the plaintiffs during the transition of the current regular employment, can not be seen as having been unilaterally granted benefits to the plaintiffs, such as providing the guarantee of status and promotion opportunity, etc. according to the transition of the current regular employment. However, if it is based on the premise that the previous rules of employment transition benefits were granted to the previous regular employment workers, it would be an additional benefit.

C. Determination on the legality of the consent to the amendment of remuneration regulations

In order for an employer to amend the existing working conditions to be disadvantageous to workers due to the amendment of the previous rules of employment, consent by collective decision-making method is required of the workers under the application of the previous rules of employment. It is not effective to amend the rules of employment without such consent. If there is no trade union, consent by meeting method is required of a majority of the workers. The consent by meeting method is not necessarily required to hold a meeting in a lump sum, but it is allowed to gather opinions from the workers by exchanging opinions between the workers under the condition that the intervention or interference of the employer is excluded by the organization or unit department of a business or workplace. Here, the employer's intervention or interference means that the employer forces an employer to give consent by clearly or implied means to the extent that it interferes with the employee's autonomous and collective decision-making, and it is not possible to conclude that the employer's consent was unfair interference or implied in the process of explaining and publicizing the contents of the amended rules of employment to workers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da12821, Nov. 14, 2003).

In light of the above facts and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 13 (including numbers), the defendant reviewed the conversion conditions in the process of selecting 64 non-regular workers including the plaintiffs pursuant to the government's comprehensive measures for non-regular workers in the public sector according to the government's comprehensive measures for non-regular workers. As a result, the defendant adopted a realistic plan to exclude the work experience before the conversion from the initial annual salary calculation instead of incorporating the full-time workers into class 6 of the existing general service class. Accordingly, the defendant distributed data explaining that the above measures were implemented to the employees on the grounds of budgetary problems following the conversion of the full-time workers and equity issues in the application of the remuneration rating between the transitioners. On September 27, 2007, the defendant, among 50 persons including the plaintiffs, who held an explanatory meeting to publicize the inevitable nature of the aforementioned conversion plan in the presence of 50 persons including the plaintiffs, and after then the defendant held an explanatory meeting, the above content of the application for conversion can be acknowledged as follows.

In the case of applying for a conversion of class 6 in general service (Consent) to class 6 in the main sentence: The above applicant's name: The above applicant's resident registration number is consented to the change of working conditions under the Corporation's regulations such as retirement age, remuneration, and all labor matters after the transition to the general service from non-regular to the general service, and apply for a conversion to class 6 in general service. Provided, That with respect to the determination of the beginning salary of an individual after the transition to class 6 in general service, the applicant's (person) chairperson of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea shall be the chairperson of September 207.

As seen earlier, the Defendant held a briefing session on September 27, 2007 and delivered the Defendant’s position on the process of transition to regular workers, including the Plaintiffs. However, it cannot be easily inferred that the consent to change working conditions was derived from the process of collective exchange of workers’ free will. In such a case, it should be carefully determined whether the consent to change working conditions is valid under the correlation between the employer’s consent and the employees’ consent to change working conditions, rather than the Plaintiffs’ consent to change working conditions under the premise that the change to regular employment conditions would have been applied to the aforementioned change to regular workers’ work experience. In short, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s consent to change working conditions would not have reached the above change to regular workers’ work experience under the premise that the change to regular employment conditions would not have been applied to any disadvantage to regular workers’ consent. In short, the Defendant’s consent to change working conditions would not have been applied to any disadvantage to regular workers’ prior to the change to regular employment conditions.

D. Determination as to whether it is reasonable by social norms to change disadvantage

In principle, the employer's unilateral revision of the rules of employment is not allowed to impose unfavorable working conditions by depriving of the rights and interests of the employee's vested in the employer. However, even if the revision of the rules of employment is required and its content is considered in both aspects and the degree of disadvantage that the employee may suffer, the application of the rules of employment may not be denied solely on the ground that there is no consent from the worker who is subject to the previous rules of employment in collective decision-making method, in a case where it is recognized that the rules of employment are reasonable under the generally accepted social norms so as to recognize the legal norms of the provisions concerned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 203Da3629, Jan. 28, 2010). Meanwhile, the existence of rationality under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively considering the degree of disadvantage suffered by the employee due to the amendment of the rules of employment, the necessity and degree of the employer's modification, the reasonableness of the contents of the rules of employment after the amendment, the bargaining process with the trade union or other workers' response, and the domestic general situation of the same kind of employment.

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (i) the Defendant’s existing work experience in the process of the transition of non-regular workers on August 29, 207 as well as the fact that there is no possibility of the transition of the above-mentioned work experience to the public sector’s 6th and 12 employees; (ii) the Defendant’s existing work experience in the process of the transition of non-regular workers on the basis of the previous 7th anniversary of the need for the transition of the previous work experience in the public sector’s current work experience; and (iii) the Defendant’s current work experience in the public sector’s 7th anniversary of the need for the transition of the previous work experience in the public sector’s 6th and new work experience in the public sector’s 7th and new work experience in the public sector’s 7th and new work experience in the public sector’s 6th and new work experience in the public sector’s 10th and new work experience in the public sector’s 7th and new work experience in the public sector’s 20th.

E. Determination on the claim for long-term continuous service allowances

According to the above facts, in this case where there is no special circumstance to exclude the period of service as a non-regular employee from the "period of service as an employee" which is the basis for calculating the long-term continuous service allowance as prescribed in Article 29 of the Remuneration Regulations, the plaintiffs who are currently converted to a regular employee, who are subject to the regulation of the instant remuneration regulations, may claim a long-term continuous service allowance in proportion to the period of service lawfully in accordance with Article 29 of the above Remuneration Regulations, regardless of the validity of the disadvantageous change in the pertinent provision related to the determination of the beginning salary.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, notwithstanding Article 2 of the Addenda to the instant remuneration provision which was newly established disadvantageously, the plaintiffs are in the position of each class listed in the attached Table 1 of the 6th grade general service of the defendant. Thus, as long as the defendant contests the above remuneration provision on the grounds that the supplementary part of the above remuneration provision is valid, he has the interest to seek confirmation thereof. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount listed in the attached Table 2, which is the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as to each of the above money, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 23, 2011 to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Justices Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Justice)