Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The parties, etc. 1) The Defendant is a company engaged in the taxi passenger transport business. The Plaintiff is a taxi engineer from January 2005 to October 31, 2019 under an employment contract concluded with the Defendant. 2) The Defendant entered into a collective agreement and wage agreement with the CFD (hereinafter “instant labor union”) with the Plaintiff on October 30, 2009, which provides that working hours shall be eight hours a day and eight hours a day, etc. (hereinafter “instant agreement, etc.”) and entered into a collective agreement and wage agreement with the Defendant on January 20, 201.

B. 1) On January 23, 2014, the Defendant’s taxi engineer decided that the Defendant and the instant labor union set working hours at four hours a day under the collective agreement and wage agreement in 2011 against the Defendant at the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch (2014Gahap20278) on January 23, 2014. However, in fact, the taxi engineer still worked at 12 hours a day (4 hours a day and four hours a day a day a day a day a day a week a day a day a day a day has not been reduced. As the Minimum Wage Act applies to the taxi industry from July 1, 2010 to the taxi industry, the Defendant’s wage was set at four hours a day ad hoc working hours under the Minimum Wage Act. As such, the agreement on the reduction of working hours as seen above is null and void, the Defendant’s assertion that the aforementioned provision of the instant labor and night work hours calculated based on eight hours, and that the payment of difference between the wages and retirement allowances already paid constitutes an evasion of the law.