1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,520,777 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 4, 2016 to October 13, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a company operating passenger transport business, etc., and the Plaintiff joined the Defendant company on August 13, 2008 and served as a taxi driver on February 19, 2016.

Article 5(1) Workers are obliged to pay the following standard transport earnings, and in the event of any shortage, they shall not arbitrarily use or use transport earnings by 89,000 o'clock 1:00 o'clock 1:0 o'clock 89,00 o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'. 2) Transport earnings by o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'

B. On November 14, 2014, the Defendant and the Defendant’s trade union entered into the wage agreement (hereinafter “instant wage agreement”) and the content pertaining to the instant case are as follows.

C. In accordance with the wage agreement of this case, the Plaintiff deposited daily standard transport earnings (so-called taxi commission) 89,000 won to the Defendant, and directly reverted the remainder of transport earnings (hereinafter “excess transport earnings”) to the Plaintiff’s individual income.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 21 of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides a full-scale management system under which the Defendant Company is obligated to provide the full-scale management system prior to the instant wage agreement, and the Defendant Company was operated in a manner that the taxi drivers deposit the entire transport revenue to the Defendant, and the Defendant deducted a certain taxi commission, and then deposit it to the taxi drivers on the payment day of each month.

Comparing the total amount management system, which is a legitimate form, and the taxi commission scheme, which is an illegal form, the amount of retirement benefits under the wage agreement of this case is less than the total amount management system, so the wage agreement of this case is under Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act.