1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for changing or adding corresponding parts as set forth in paragraph (2) below.

2. Parts to be altered or added;

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part to be replaced with “1-D. 2 and 3” [the part from 5 to 1-D. 5 pages] is replaced with the part to be indicated “...........”

2) At the early stage of the introduction of a NLA, the Defendant did not pay one person’s working allowance to the NLA driver who drives the “Seoul-New Airport route” that falls under the Seoul-New Airport route, and paid one person’s working allowance to the NLA driver who drives the route, such as Seoul-YA, which falls under the “non-Seoul Metropolitan Area Routes”. The Defendant paid one person’s working allowance to the NLA engineer.

3. Since February 19, 2012, the defendant did not pay one person's working allowance to all drivers of driving systems from February 19, 2012 by applying the "term for the payment of one person's working allowance to the driver company of the electric vehicle in Seoul Metropolitan area". From April 14, 2014, the defendant uniformly pays one person's working allowance to all employers of the street from April 2014.

A person shall be appointed.

B. 1) The portion added up to 2 lines from 5th below the text of the judgment of the court of first instance to the following two lines: 4) The machinery company in charge of driving as a part of the Defendant’s employees who enjoy as the Defendant’s employees may not be deemed the same train with the inside structure, operating speed, the performance of duties of the crew on board, the operation system, etc. of the train except for the overlap between the electric trains in the Seoul metropolitan area and some operational sections, and thus, the one-person work allowance should be paid regardless of whether the train crew on board is on duty as a regular train operator pursuant to Article 12(2) of the enforcement of the instant case, such as the ordinary train company, and the previous claim for the payment of unpaid wages (Seoul Southern District Court 2015Kahap10936, Jun. 6, 1993).