The case holding that it is difficult to view that Article 42 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, which provides for the principle of full payment of wages, is violated when an entrepreneur engaged in taxi transport business deducts the shortage of transport earnings from the wages to be paid to taxi drivers based on a collective agreement.

The case holding that, in case where a collective agreement entered into between a taxi transport business operator and an employment taxi driver provides that the monthly wage system corresponding to the transport earnings shall be implemented, the standard amount of transport earnings shall be settled monthly, and the daily standard shortage shall not be deducted from the monthly wage, according to the above collective agreement, a driver may be paid the total amount of the wages stipulated in the collective agreement, and the monthly wage shall not be deducted from the monthly wage, but if there is a shortage in the monthly wage, it shall be interpreted that the act of deducting the shortage in transport earnings from the wage to be paid to the above driver violates Article 42 (1) of the Labor Standards Act which provides for the principle of full-time payment of transport earnings, but the contents of the collective agreement cannot be denied even if it violates the purport of Article 22 (1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act which provides for the full-time payment of transport earnings.

Articles 42(1) and 112 of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 22(1) and 85(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act

Defendant

Defendant

The grandchildren shall:

Law Firm Chang-Gong, Attorney Do Jong-hwan

Daegu District Court Decision 2004Gohap5036 Decided May 18, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The facts charged in this case

The defendant is an employer who runs the taxi transport business by employing 113 full-time workers as the representative director of the cargo transport company. Although workers' wages are paid in full at least once a month on a fixed date, the defendant decided to adopt the so-called "full-time wage management system" as a taxi driver belonging to the above company and did not pay 739,60 won in total, including 345,440 won in March 3, 2004, 17,920 won in April of the same year, and 177,920 won in April of the same year in relation to non-indicted 2 in March of the same year and 2 in April of the same year, on the ground that the shortage of transportation revenues, arbitrarily deducted from the wages of the above company on the ground that the above company's regular wage payment date is insufficient.

B. The judgment of the court below

On the contrary, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the partial statement, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2’s each legal statement, part of the protocol of interrogation of the Defendant’s prosecution against the Defendant’s suspect, the police protocol on Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, the copy of each statement, each collective agreement and each wage agreement, and the copies of each labor contract.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The defendant's deduction of shortage in transport earnings from wages is lawful in accordance with collective agreements and labor contracts, and the defendant did not have intention to violate the Labor Standards Act.

3. Judgment of the court below

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant’s monthly settlement of the shortage of transport earnings from Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 violates the main sentence of Article 42(1) of the Labor Standards Act stipulating the principle of full payment of wages.

B. According to the main sentence of Article 42(1) of the Labor Standards Act, if the above provision provides that "the total amount of wages shall be paid to workers in currency", and the proviso of the same paragraph provides that "if there are special provisions in the Acts and subordinate statutes or the collective agreement, part of wages may be deducted or paid by means other than currency", and according to the collective agreement and wage agreement of 204 concluded between the three-month transportation companies (hereinafter referred to as "group transportation") and the three-month transportation unions, it is difficult to interpret that the above provision should be applied to the above collective agreement by deeming that the transportation income is less than those of the six-month transportation companies if the above provision provides that the transportation income is less than those of the six-month transportation companies for the first time, and that the above provision is less than those of the six-month transportation companies for the first time and thus, it is difficult to interpret that the above provision is less than those of the six-month transportation employees on the basis of the previous provision that the monthly transportation income is less than those of the six-month transportation company.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the defendant's act of deducting shortage in transport earnings from wages based on the above collective agreement violated the main sentence of Article 42 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, and even though there is no other evidence to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by mistake of facts. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the defendant is acquitted

Judges Kim Chang-sung (Presiding Judge)