1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Chief;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The parties' status as the parties concerned calculated the amount of fixed-term work allowances by multiplying the standard wages (basic pay, special duty allowance, household subsidy, transportation subsidy, and fixed-term work allowance) by the rate of actual work days for six months' work period, and then calculated by multiplying the amount of fixed-term work allowances by the rate of actual work days for six months' work period, such as retirement days listed in the annexed Table 1 list. 2) The defendant paid the amount of fixed-term work allowances to the plaintiffs based on the standards for compilation of the budget for the workers of Daegu Metropolitan City and the Gu, and applying the provisions on local public officials' allowances, etc.

3. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs had a claim for the payment of the fixed-term allowance when their work from July to December of the year in which they retired was practically terminated, but the Defendant did not pay the fixed-term allowance for their work during the said period.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above-paid allowances and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act from the day following the 14th day after the plaintiffs' retirement date to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendant’s alleged good attendance allowance is an allowance paid for the preceding six months only to those who hold office in January and July each year, and the Plaintiffs are not eligible for the payment of good attendance allowance, since the employment relationship was terminated in the following year after their retirement.

2. Each statement of No. 1 through No. 4 of the board and the purport of the whole pleadings.