The plaintiff's claim that was changed to exchange in this court is dismissed.

costs of lawsuit after filing an appeal.

1. The basic facts of the claim (1) The Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company engaging in the taxi passenger transport business, and the Plaintiff is a person who served as a taxi engineer in the Defendant Company from May 3, 2001 to June 28, 201 under an employment contract concluded with the Defendant Company.

(2) On October 30, 2009, the Defendant Company entered into a collective agreement and wage agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement, etc.”) with the effect that the Plaintiff’s CUnion D subdivision (hereinafter “this case’s union”) and its working hours are eight hours a day, and entered into a collective agreement and wage agreement with the Defendant Company on January 20, 201, on which the instant union and its working hours are eight hours a day, and the Plaintiff and its employees, regardless of the instant agreement, entered into a collective agreement and wage agreement on January 20, 201 with the same hours as the previous one.

(3) On the other hand, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment below that "the reduction of contractual work hours as above in the instant agreement, etc. constitutes an evasion of the law to circumvent the application of Article 6 (5) of the Minimum Wage Act," which held that "the agreement in this case, etc. is invalid on the ground that the agreement in this case, etc. is likely to cause a decrease in income due to the increase of taxi commission pursuant to the enforcement of the above provision, because it constitutes an agreement voluntarily and in genuine intent for the interests of both workers and the defendant company."

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da208068 Decided August 14, 2019 (Supreme Court Decision 2016Da208068).