logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.04.18 2016다2451
임금
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

1. Case progress

A. The Defendant is a limited partnership company running a passenger taxi transport business, and the Plaintiffs are taxi drivers employed by the Defendant and performing day duty.

B. The Plaintiffs were paid wages in the form of the so-called fixed taxi commission scheme, which is the method of paying a fixed amount of fixed wage from the Defendant, to the Defendant only a certain amount of the transport earnings, and the remainder of the transport earnings excluding it (hereinafter “excess transport earnings”).

C. Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act (amended by Act No. 8964, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “the Special Provision”) was enforced from July 1, 2010 to the area of Pakistan, where the Defendant is located, and excluded “wages based on output” from the scope of wages included in the minimum wage.

On July 29, 2010 and October 27, 2010, the Defendant amended the rules of employment with the consent of the majority of taxi drivers belonging thereto, respectively. However, the contractual work hours were successively reduced even though the actual work environment or work hours were not changed.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of Employment I” and “Rules of Employment II”, and the Rules of Employment Before the amendment are referred to as the “former Rules of Employment”). As a result, contractual work hours were reduced from 209 hours per month to 115 hours per month in the case of day-day system.

E. The Plaintiffs asserted that the provision on contractual work hours under the Rules of Employment 1 and the Rules of Employment 2 with the content of reducing only contractual work hours without changing actual work hours is invalid as an evasion of the law to circumvent the Minimum Wage Act, such as the Special Provision, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking payment of wages below the minimum wage amount calculated on the basis of contractual work hours under the previous Rules of Employment.

(f).

arrow