All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Defendant: (a) retired from office as a taxi engineer from January 21, 2008 to October 31, 201 under a labor contract concluded with the Defendant; (b) however, the Plaintiff re-entered on January 21, 2019, and worked until May 9, 2019 (before the aforementioned withdrawal, the Plaintiff paid a certain amount of the transport income to the Defendant company under the name of the taxi commission; and (c) separately received wages in the form of the fixed taxi commission scheme, which is the method of receiving a fixed pay from the Defendant company. The Defendant entered into the instant agreement with C Branch of the Plaintiff affiliated with the Defendant on October 30, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant union”) and the wage agreement and wage agreement with the Defendant for the hours of work by eight hours per day (hereinafter “10 hours per day”).

(c)

On January 23, 2014, taxi drivers, including the Plaintiff, worked for the Defendant as an agent for 12 hours a day (including 4 hours a day off) without the reduction of working hours, against the Defendant in the Nansan Support (2014 Gohap 20278).

As the minimum wage law applies to the taxi industry from July 1, 2010 to the taxi industry, as the Defendant’s wage falls short of the standard amount under the minimum wage law, the agreement on the reduction of the prescribed working hours is null and void. As such, the Defendant’s payment of reasonable wages, night work allowances, and retirement allowances calculated based on the actual working hours of eight hours, and the difference should be paid in cases where there are already paid wages and retirement allowances.