사납금 이행
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the first instance is that of the first instance court, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it is also acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that, while concluding a supplementary agreement in 2011 with the Defendant, etc. on the wage agreement, the Plaintiff agreed not to pay the increased minimum transport earnings, instead of receiving the increased minimum amount retroactively from July 1, 2010, the fixed wage higher than the minimum wage prescribed by the Act, was not paid retroactively.
(2) The Defendant, etc., in violation of the wage agreement’s non-payment agreement, filed a lawsuit seeking fixed wage exceeding the minimum wage amount retroactively from July 1, 2010, against the Plaintiff. As such, the “non-payment agreement” was reversed.
Therefore, the supplementary agreement to the wage agreement in 2011 takes effect from July 1, 2010 in accordance with the instant agreement. As such, the Defendant, etc. is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the minimum transportation revenue raised by the supplementary agreement in 2011 retroactively from July 1, 2010.
B. The determination that the Plaintiff entered into a supplementary agreement to the wage agreement in 2011 on the premise that the Defendant, etc. did not retroactively apply the wage agreement in 2011 with the Defendant, etc. is as seen earlier, and the fact that the Defendant, etc. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking fixed wage exceeding the minimum wage amount (the Jeonju District Court case No. 2014Da4103, hereinafter referred to as “wages lawsuit”) is nonexistent or substantial in this court.
However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the above-mentioned facts and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the “agreement not to pay wages” was rescinded, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
1. The defendant et al. against the plaintiff.