2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant, such as the relationship between the parties, etc. (hereinafter the Defendant Company) is a company engaged in the taxi passenger transport business, and the Plaintiff is a person who served as a taxi engineer at the Defendant Company from November 3, 2008 to June 20, 2019 under an employment contract concluded with the Defendant Company.

Around October 30, 2009, the Defendant Company entered into a collective agreement and wage agreement with the subcommittee (hereinafter “instant union”) to which the Plaintiff was a member of the Trade Union (hereinafter “instant union”) on the terms of eight hours a day, etc. Around January 20, 201, the Defendant Company entered into a collective agreement and wage agreement on the terms of eight hours a day. Around January 20, 201, a collective agreement and wage agreement on the terms of four hours a day, etc. (hereinafter “instant agreement, etc.”).

B. On January 23, 2014, the taxi engineer of the Defendant company, including the Plaintiff in the process of the relevant lawsuit, against the Defendant company in the Suwon District Court, Ansan Branch (2014Gahap 20278), claimed that “The Defendant and the instant union set working hours at four hours a day in the instant agreement, etc., but, in fact, the taxi company still worked at 12 hours a day (4 hours a day a day a day a day a week a day a week a day a week a day a week a day a week a day a week a day a week a day a taxi driver applied the Minimum Wage Act from July 1, 2010 to the taxi industry, the amount of wages paid by the Defendant company falls short of the standard amount under the Minimum Wage Act. As such, the agreement on the reduction of contractual work hours as seen above is null and void, the Defendant company sought payment of the difference between justifiable wages and night work hours calculated based on eight hours per actual working hours, and wages and retirement allowances already paid.”

On August 20, 2015, Suwon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the claims of taxi engineers of the defendant company including the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the above judgment and around September 2015.