beta
Text
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The relationship between the parties, etc. 1) The Defendant is a company running the taxi passenger transport business. The Plaintiff is a person who worked as a taxi engineer from March 2010 to March 31, 2016 in accordance with the labor contract concluded with the Defendant. 2) The Defendant entered into a collective agreement and wage agreement on October 30, 2009 with the Korea Trade Union D subdivisions (hereinafter “instant labor union”) to which the Plaintiff joined and the hours of work eight hours a day, etc. (hereinafter “instant agreement, etc.”) and entered into a collective agreement and wage agreement with the Defendant on January 20, 2011.
B. On January 23, 2014, taxi engineers, including the Plaintiff, worked for 12 hours a day (4 hours a day and 4 hours a day) under the collective agreement and wage agreement in 2011 against the Defendant in the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch (2014Gahap 20278) on January 23, 2014. However, in fact, the Plaintiffs still worked for 12 hours a day (4 hours a day and 4 hours a day a day a day a day a week a day has not been reduced, as the Minimum Wage Act applies to the taxi industry from July 1, 2010 to the taxi industry, the Defendant’s wage, etc. falls short of the standard amount under the Minimum Wage Act. As such, the agreement on the reduction of contractual work hours as seen above is null and void, the Defendant’s claim for the difference between justifiable wage and night work allowance calculated based on actual working hours, and wage and retirement allowance calculated based on such application, and the previous lawsuit seeking the payment of the difference (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).
(2) On August 20, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim by determining that “the agreement on reduction of working hours pursuant to the instant agreement, etc. is valid” and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.
Therefore, the plaintiff et al. appealed.