Plaintiff 1 and fourteen others (Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Limited Liability LLC Gwangjusi

May 9, 2013

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money indicated in the "amount of prize by plaintiff" in attached Form 1. The amount of money calculated by 5% per annum from May 7, 2013 to June 27, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money stated in the claim column of attached Form 2. The amount of money calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the purport of the claim and the copy of the application for correction of cause as of May 2, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiffs are taxi engineers who belong to the Defendant, and are members of the Korea Labor Union's Democratic Taxi Headquarters of the Korea Labor Union (hereinafter "the Labor Union Division of this case"), and the Defendant is a taxi company with the purpose of automobile transport service, etc.

B. Conclusion of wage agreements and collective agreements

The Labor Relations Adjustment Division of this case concluded a wage agreement with the Defendant on June 1, 2008, and a collective agreement on June 15, 2010, respectively. The main contents are as follows (hereinafter referred to as the “instant wage agreement,” and the said collective agreement is referred to as the “instant collective agreement”). The wage inspection table for the year 2008 of the instant wage agreement is as indicated in the attached Table 3.

○ Wage Agreement of this case

Article 3 (Service System)

1. The system of service shall, in principle, be on a day-day service (one day-day service, one day-day service), and shall be on a 13-day service day per month, except that on a 12-day service day per February;

2. The chairperson of the labor union sub-council shall recognize the full-time transfer of duties in the labor union on the 13th day of a month and treat a driver in the same manner as a full-time employee works.

Article 4 (Working Conditions)

Work hours shall be eight hours a day basic work and six hours a day.

1) Starting hours 07:00 to ending hours 24:00

2. Working hours: 14 hours, meal hours, and break hours: 3 hours; and

Article 5 (Monthly Wage System)

The monthly pay system shall be as follows:

Monthly pay = Basic pay + Continuous Continuous Extension of continuous service allowance, night work allowance, + overtime work allowance (Holiday work) + overtime work allowance (Holiday work) + various allowances.

Article 6 (Classification of Monthly Wages)

The classification of monthly wages shall be as follows, and the contents shall be in accordance with the separate calculation table:

1. Basic pay:

The term "basic wage" means the wage calculated based on the base labor for eight hours a day.

2. Continuous service allowances;

1) The Company shall pay an annual amount of 10,000 won to a person who has worked for at least one year and shall apply to a person who has worked for at least seven days.

2) Continuous service allowances = 10,000 won 】 Number of continuous service years

3. Allowances for extension, night and holiday;

The term “other allowances as agreed under the Labor Standards Act” means the allowances.

The wage calculation basis of the table included in the main sentence x 1,460 won for basic salary 1,51,840 won 】 8 hours 】 46,720 won for weekly leave allowances 】 8 hours 】 170,820 won for 4 days overtime allowances 】 1,460 won for 1,460 won for 4 days overtime allowances 】 1,60 won 】 6 hours 】 18,980 won for night work allowances 】 13 days night work allowances 】 0.5 】 】 0.2 hours 】 】 10,000 won for continuous service allowances for 38,360 won for 13 days 】 11,680 won for continuous service years (working for 7 days or more per month)

Article 7 (Reward)

1. A company shall pay 200% of average wages to members who have worked for not less than one year. The method of payment shall be quarterly (3, 6, 9, and 12) and shall be paid five days before the Gu administration and the prosecution;

2.The above paragraph 1 above shall apply only to those who have served for not less than one year, and the term "persons of continuous service for not less than one year" means workers who have served for not less than one year by the end of the month preceding the month in which bonus payment has occurred

Article 8 (Matters to be Observed by Labor and History)

1. Revenue of the company shall be one hundred and twenty thousand won per day;

Article 9 (Urgency)

2. Urgency shall be 1,460 won;

Article 12 (Validity Term)

This Agreement shall enter into force from June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2009.

○ The instant collective agreement

Article 1 (Recognition of Negotiation Organizations)

1. The Company recognizes that it is the sole labor organization negotiating agreements and other matters on behalf of all union members.

Article 3 (Scope of Members)

1. Employees shall be automatically admitted to the company with regular participation at the same time as that of the company.

Article 11 (Full-time Officer)

A company shall recognize the number of working days of the president of the local branch to be in charge of union affairs for up to 13 days and treat the same as a driver: Provided, That the full-time officer shall recognize the appointment of a higher-level organization as an executive officer, and the full-time officer shall execute it as current, and he shall pay 18,000 won per day to the chairperson of the local branch as allowances for ten days (the vice-chairperson and the secretary general recognize the transfer of duties

Article 30 (Payment of Wages)

A company shall calculate from the first day to the last day of each day and pay the full amount to the principal in currency on the tenth day following the day, and if the payment date is a holiday, it shall be paid on the preceding

Article 84 (Validity Term)

The term of validity of this Convention shall be from June 15, 2010 to June 14, 2012. The Convention on Wages shall prevail.

C. Progress of the criminal judgment

The non-party representative director of the defendant was indicted for violating the Minimum Wage Act and the violation of the Labor Standards Act that the non-party was punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million on January 13, 2012, and the non-party filed an appeal with the Changwon District Court 201 High Court 201No2192, which was the non-party 1 and the non-party 12 were paid wages below the minimum wage amount from July 201 to January 201, and the non-party was not paid 4,934,660 won every month on the regular payment date, and the above court was sentenced to a judgment that sentenced the non-party to a fine of KRW 1.5 million on May 13, 2012. However, the non-party was dissatisfied with the judgment that dismissed the appeal on May 31, 2012, which became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court of Korea on September 13, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the claim for unpaid wages

1) The defendant's duty to pay wages

A) The term of validity of the collective agreement in this case was from June 15, 2010 to June 14, 2012; the agreement on wages was decided by the wage agreement; pursuant to Article 11 of the collective agreement in this case, the chairperson of the Labor Relations Division in this case’s Labor Relations Division’s chairperson on 13th day per month; and the chairperson of the Labor Relations Division on 3th day of each month’s work, as seen earlier. Considering the overall purport of the arguments in Eul’s evidence 7-1 to 16, and Eul’s evidence 8-1 to 16, the overall purport of the argument is as follows: Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 6, and Plaintiff 8’s remaining plaintiffs from July 2010 to October 10, 201, the Defendant is deemed to have no duty to pay the Plaintiff’s wages for 10th day of work and 20th day of work, as the number of working days in each of the Plaintiff’s wages for 10th day from July 20, 2016th day of work.

B) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant collective agreement is the only labor organization of the Defendant, and that all the employees belonging to the Defendant have joined the instant union division (Articles 1 and 3 of the instant collective agreement). Since the amendment of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) was possible, multiple labor unions were established according to the amendment of the said union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and the Defendant also works for a separate union in addition to the instant union division, the instant collective agreement is null and void as it is in violation of the said Trade Union Act. In particular, Article 11 of the said Trade Union Act on the full-time union employee was prohibited from paying wages to the full-time union employee, and thus, it is null and void.

In light of the fact that the amendment of the Trade Union Act was made on January 1, 2010, before the conclusion of the instant collective agreement, it is difficult to view that the entire collective agreement in this case is null and void solely on the ground that the establishment of multiple labor unions is permitted from July 1, 2011. The proviso to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Trade Union Act (Law No. 930, January 1, 2010) provides, “However, if the whole or part of the contents of the collective agreement violates Article 24 due to the enforcement of this Act, it shall be deemed to be effective until the expiration date of the relevant collective agreement, notwithstanding the enforcement of this Act.” Thus, Article 11 of the instant collective agreement on the full-time union of this case is valid until June 14, 2012, which is the effective date of the instant collective agreement. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

C) In addition, the Defendant asserts that it is unreasonable to seek wages, etc. based on the previous collective agreement in favor of the Plaintiffs, without complying therewith, even though a new collective agreement should be concluded between the Defendant and the employees, including the Plaintiffs, to adjust working hours, etc. according to the enforcement of the Minimum Wage Act.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 5, as a whole, the new collective agreement was concluded because the difference between labor and management is narrow before and after the Minimum Wage Act enters into force. The legislative intent of the Minimum Wage Act is to ensure the stable livelihood of taxi drivers by guaranteeing that taxi drivers can receive wages exceeding the minimum wage amount even if the transport income is low due to raising the ratio of fixed wage out of the wages received by taxi drivers (see Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ma477, Aug. 30, 201). In addition, the calculation of wages based on the existing collective agreement and wage agreement’s working conditions cannot be deemed unfair, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.

(ii) the existence of unpaid wages

A) Relevant provisions

Article 6 of the Minimum Wage Act

(1) An employer shall pay wages exceeding the minimum wage amount to workers to whom the minimum wage applies.

(3) The portion determined as wages below the minimum wage amount in an employment contract between the workers and the employer to whom the minimum wage applies shall be null and void, and in this case, null and void portion shall be deemed to have been paid the same wage as the minimum wage amount as

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (4), the scope of wages included in the minimum wage of drivers in taxi transport business pursuant to Article 3 of the Passenger Transport Service Act and subparagraph 2 (c) of Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be wages prescribed by Presidential Decree, excluding the wages calculated on the basis of output.

○ Addenda to the Minimum Wage Act (Law No. 8964, March 21, 2008)

(1) This Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation: Provided, That the enforcement date of the amended provisions of Article 6 (5) shall be as follows:

2. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and Si areas under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Local Autonomy Act: July 1, 2010.

Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Minimum Wage Act

"Wages prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 6 (5) of the Act means wages paid at least once a month according to payment conditions and payment rate prescribed in a collective agreement, employment rules, or labor contract: Provided, That none of the following wages shall be included:

1. Wages other than those paid for contractual working hours or contractual working days;

2. Wages paid for subsidies for living and welfare of workers.

B) Determination

According to the provision of Article 10 of the Minimum Wage Act, the monthly minimum wage per 2010 hours is 4,110 won, and the minimum wage per 201 hours is 4,320 won. Under the provision of the above 10-day minimum wage agreement, the Plaintiffs agreed to naturally work for 14 hours a day off, instead of 1 day off, with 8,6 hours overtime hours. The Defendant agreed to pay the above allowances by explicitly stipulating the number of working days, night work allowances, and weekly leave allowances to 10-day minimum wage per month. Under the provision of the above 10-day minimum wage agreement, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the above allowances by 10-day minimum wage per day to 6-day minimum wage per month. The Defendant’s payment of the above allowances by 10-day minimum wage per month to 10-day minimum wage per month, regardless of the names of the above 10-day minimum wage agreements.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that each of the above amounts should be deducted since the Defendant paid the above amounts as part of the minimum wage per month to the Plaintiffs as part of the evidence Nos. 1-3. However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments as to the evidence Nos. 2 and 1-3 of the evidence Nos. 1-3, it can be recognized that each of the above amounts constitutes the “wages based on output” under Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, and thus, it does not constitute the wages included in the minimum wage.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination as to the claim for unpaid bonuses

The fact that Article 7 of the wage agreement of this case provides that the average wage of 200% shall be paid by quarterly ( March, June, September, and December) with bonus for the members who worked for not less than one year in accordance with the principle of minimum wage shall be null and void, and the invalid part shall be deemed to have been paid the same wage as the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act. In light of the fact that Article 6 (3) of the Minimum Wage Act provides that the wage amount below the minimum wage amount among the labor contract between the workers subject to the minimum wage and the employers shall be deemed to have been null and void, it shall be deemed that the "average wage" under Article 7 of the wage agreement of this case refers to the minimum wage amount if the wage amount paid under the wage agreement of this case is below the minimum wage amount. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant is liable to pay the remaining plaintiffs except for the plaintiff 14 who did not seek bonus payment (three-month average wage amount ± 2). The above part of the bonus amount is the same as the bonus amount of each of the above plaintiffs' payment damages.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the following amounts to the plaintiffs as stated in the "amount of the quoted amount" as stated in attached Form 1. The defendant's each of the above amounts and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 7, 2013 to June 27, 2013, the date following the delivery of the copy of the claim and the application for correction of cause as of May 2, 2013.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of each of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Shin Sang-ho (Presiding Judge)