B. The Plaintiffs entered into an employment contract between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company by means of receiving the entire amount of excess transport earnings remaining after paying the standard transport earnings (tax rate) from the transport earnings, which are punished through taxi operation on the same day, (i) and (ii). The Plaintiffs did not receive fixed wages from the Defendant Company.

Plaintiff

2014-2015 Working Hours of 2014-2015 Work Hours of 2016-2017 Work Hours of 2015-2017 Work Hours of 2016-2017 Work Hours of 2016-2017 Hours of Work Hours of 5 hours and 49-192 B 79-79-29, 136-136-298-290-36 hours of 444-298-290

C. The plaintiffs' working hours per day and the number of days worked as a daily rate system during which they hold office in the defendant company are as listed below (hereinafter "the table of working days in this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2 through 4, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5-7, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The contents of the Minimum Wage Act related to this case’s Minimum Wage Act are as follows.

Article 6 of the Minimum Wage Act (Effect of Minimum Wage) (1) An employer shall provide the workers to whom the minimum wage is applied with wages exceeding the minimum wage amount.

(3) The portion determined as wages below the minimum wage amount in an employment contract between the workers and the employer to whom the minimum wage applies shall be null and void, and in this case, null and void portion shall be deemed to have been paid the same wage as the minimum wage amount as

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (4), the scope of wages included in the minimum wage of drivers in taxi transport business pursuant to Article 3 of the Passenger Transport Service Act and subparagraph 2 (c) of Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, except the wages calculated on the basis