[평균임금정정신청불승인처분취소][공2000.6.15.(108),1323]
In cases where taxi drivers of a transportation company have obtained the balance after deducting taxi commission out of the transportation income as individual income, whether the amount of average wage, which is the basis for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, should be included in the income after deducting the above taxi commission (affirmative)
In addition to paying a certain amount of wages according to the number of actual working days each month to taxi drivers under his/her jurisdiction, where a transportation company has left the remainder of the daily taxi commission after deducting taxi commission from the daily taxi commission to the individual's income, the remainder after deducting the above taxi commission, which is the individual's income, shall be deemed to have been paid for the work in consideration of the unique characteristics of the work form and the convenience of calculation, etc. of the taxi drivers for business purposes. Therefore, in calculating the average wage that is the basis for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the remainder after deducting the taxi commission out of the transportation
Articles 18 and 19(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 4 subparag. 2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act
Supreme Court Decision 84Do1861 delivered on March 26, 1985 (Gong1985, 655), Supreme Court Decision 87Da573 delivered on March 22, 198 (Gong1988, 673), Supreme Court Decision 91Da36192 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong1994, 494), Supreme Court Decision 95Da5733 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 104), Supreme Court Decision 95Da5733 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong1998, 104), Supreme Court Decision 95Da5733 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong1998, 198, 199)
Plaintiff
Korea Labor Welfare Corporation
Busan High Court Decision 97Gu17308 delivered on August 19, 1998
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
First, with respect to the defendant's main safety defense, the court below recognized that the plaintiff was served a decision on the request for examination and made a request for reexamination within the lawful period of time by considering the evidence employed by the judgment. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is just and there is no error of law in violation of the rule of experience or the rules of evidence as discussed, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party 2 (hereinafter "non-party company's non-party company") paid a certain amount of transportation commission (the amount of 96,00 won shall be deemed as 9,00 won in error at the time of the judgment of the court below) from the drivers belonging to the deceased, and paid a certain amount monthly amount as basic pay. The non-party company's driver's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party 2's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party 9's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party 9.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)