The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the bonus of this case does not constitute “wages based on output” as provided by Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act excluded from comparative wage for the purpose of applying the Minimum Wage Act, and that the ordinary wage of this case differs from the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act, and its function and method are different, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the bonus of this case was paid fixedly, depending on the actual number of working days, etc.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the meaning of “wages based on output” or “ordinary wages” under Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, or by failing to

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant’s management possibility or control is not recognized with respect to the remaining Plaintiffs’ taxi transport earnings that exceed the taxi commission among the Plaintiffs’ taxi transport earnings, and that such excess transport earnings are not included in the average wage, which is the basis

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on average wages or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court cannot be deemed that the amount of value-added tax reduced under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is directly reverted to the Plaintiffs, who are taxi drivers, and the Defendant is the amount of value-added tax reduced.