1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On April 20, 201, the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary dismissal notification from the Defendant Company on June 4, 2013 while serving as a taxi engineer on April 20, 201, but filed an application for remedy, such as unfair dismissal, with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, and received a judgment of acceptance on the part of the application for unfair dismissal relief on July 31, 2013.

After that, although the defendant company filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on October 24, 2013, it received a decision to dismiss the application for reexamination, and filed an administrative litigation, but the judgment to dismiss the application of the defendant company became final and conclusive on November 25, 2015.

(Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap63827, Seoul High Court 20104Nu73465, Supreme Court 2015Du53299). Accordingly, the Plaintiff was reinstated to the Defendant Company on January 1, 2016.

B. The Defendant Company recognized the remainder of the daily transport income of a driving engineer, excluding a certain amount of taxi commission paid to the Defendant Company, as personal income, and the Defendant Company provided a certain amount of LPG gas to the driving engineer, and paid the basic pay based on three to forty minutes per day.

C. At the time of dismissal, the Plaintiff operated NFnata vehicle, and the taxi commission from June 4, 2013 to October 31, 2014 of the said vehicle is KRW 83,00,000 in 87,00 in o'clock, and the taxi commission from November 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015 is KRW 93,00 in o'clock,00 in o'clock, and KRW 96,00 in o'clock.

The Plaintiff received KRW 18,413,136 from the Defendant as retirement allowances, etc., 1,726,328, and basic pay.

(No dispute is raised with respect to the amount of basic pay). [No dispute is raised with respect to the basis for recognition] . [No dispute is raised, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s wage consists of personal income (the total amount of transportation income less taxi commission) and the basic wage. The Plaintiff merely received a basic wage of KRW 18,413,136 from June 4, 2013 to December 31, 2015, which is an unfair dismissal period, from the Defendant and received from the Defendant.