1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A.D has served as a taxi driver belonging to the Defendant Company since March 6, 2010.

D around 13:00 on February 10, 2015, he/she was deprived of a stroke in the taxi he/she was driving, and died of a stroke stroke with a stroke stroke in a state where he/she was placed behind a driver's seat.

(hereinafter referred to as “D”). (b)

The plaintiffs are their successors as the births of the deceased.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence No. 4-1 of Evidence No. 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. From November 2014, the Defendant Company’s claim against the Plaintiffs is called “one-person primary system” where the Defendant Company, from around November 2014, assigned a taxi to the Deceased solely without other alternates.

(3) In calculating the working hours under paragraphs (1) and (2), a worker’s waiting time, etc. under the direction and supervision of the employer shall be deemed working hours. In addition, the taxi commission scheme adopted by the Defendant Company violates Article 21(1) and (21) of the Passenger Transport Service Act, as well as Article 21(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter referred to as “transport employee”) of the Passenger Transport Service Act, which provides for workers’ working hours and recess hours and recess hours, did not assign a shift engineer or implement a reasonable dispatch. The working conditions as above do not include any person who is engaged in driving service of passenger transport business after meeting the eligibility to engage in driving service under Article 24 (hereinafter referred to as “transport employee”).

(i)transport earnings or charges received by a user (hereinafter referred to as "transport earnings");

the full amount of this subsection.