Plaintiff 1 and seven others (Attorney Lee Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Geum River Transportation Co., Ltd. (Attorney Song-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 24, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 20% interest per annum with respect to each of the corresponding amounts and each of the above amounts stated in the attached Table 1 attached hereto from April 12, 2014 to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a company whose purpose is the taxi transportation business, etc. in Dong-gu ( Address omitted), and the plaintiffs are those who work or worked as a taxi driver belonging to the defendant, and their employment status is as listed below.

On October 11, 2010, Plaintiff 1, who was employed on October 201, 201, as Plaintiff 3, on April 8, 2012, on December 13, 2013, Plaintiff 4, on December 13, 2013, on December 15, 2013, Plaintiff 5, on November 17, 2013, 199 Plaintiff 6, Sept. 1, 2015, 201, on September 15, 2011, Plaintiff 5, on December 17, 2013, 2013, Plaintiff 5, on November 1, 2013, 201, on May 15, 2011, Plaintiff 5, etc.

B. On the day of service, the Plaintiffs entered into a labor contract with the Defendant in a manner that only pays the standard transport earnings (so-called taxi commission) to the company and brings the remainder of excess transport earnings (so-called contract) from the taxi earnings, which are punished through taxi operation (hereinafter “the Defendant”). The Plaintiffs did not receive fixed wages from the Defendant.

C. According to the Plaintiffs’ individual labor contract, the contractual work hours per day from March 201 to December 2013 are five hours; the contractual work hours per month are 152 hours; the contractual work hours per day from January 2014 are 4 hours to 40 minutes; and the contractual work hours per month are 142 hours. The number of contractual work days per month of the Plaintiffs is 13 days.

D. The number of working days of each month of the plaintiffs are as stated in the "number of working days" in the attached Table 2, and the number of days of unused annual paid leave is as stated in the "number of days of unused annual paid leave" in the same table. The hours of night work are as stated in the "number of days of unused annual paid leave" in the same table. The hours of night work are as stated in the "number of hours of night work" in the same table, and whether workers' day work is "number of working days" in the same table are as stated in the corresponding

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the fact inquiry results against the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Employment and Labor of the intermediate branch of the court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant provisions;

○ Minimum Wage Act

Article 6 (Effect of Minimum Wage)

(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

(4) Wages falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be included in the wages under paragraphs (1) and (3):

1. Wages, other than those paid periodically at least once a month, which are prescribed by the Minister of Employment and Labor;

2. Wages, other than those paid for the contractual working hours under Article 2 (1) 7 of the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter referred to as "contractual working hours") or the contractual working days, which are determined by the Minister of Employment and Labor;

3. Other wages determined separately by the Minister of Employment and Labor as inappropriate to be included in the minimum wage amount.

(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 the output.

The Addenda

(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:

1. Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Local Autonomy Act: July 1, 2009;

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

3. Areas other than subparagraphs 1 and 2: July 1, 2012.

○ Enforcement Decree of the Minimum Wage Act

Article 5-2 (Scope of Wages Included in Minimum Wage of Drivers in Taxi Transportation Business)

"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.

3. Judgment on the claim for payment of the minimum wage

A. The parties’ assertion on the cause of the claim

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs seek the payment of the unpaid minimum wage against the Defendant since they did not receive the wages guaranteed under the Minimum Wage Act, in addition to excess taxi earnings.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) The Plaintiffs were in the form of paying the standard taxi commission (so-called taxi commission) to the Defendant in return for the vehicle dispatch from the transport earnings, which are punished through taxi operation on the day of service, and directly taking the full amount of the excess taxi earnings without being subject to any management or control from the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are not workers under the Labor Standards Act in subordinate relationship with which they are employed.

B) Even if the Plaintiffs are workers under the Labor Standards Act, the term “production-of-work wage” under Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act exists only in cases where taxi drivers receive the “fixed pay” from the taxi company. In the instant case, the concept of “production-of-work wage” cannot be applied, and thus, Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act does not apply to the case where there is no payment of the “fixed pay” as in the instant case. Therefore, the total amount of excess-work income brought by the Plaintiffs is included in the minimum wage, and the Plaintiffs received excess transport income exceeding

B. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) Determination as to whether the plaintiffs' employee status is recognized

A) Determination as to whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act shall be based on whether a contract form is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and whether a worker has a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace. Determination of whether a labor relationship is subordinate to the above mentioned above shall be made by the employer and shall be subject to the rules of employment or employment regulations, and shall be subject to considerable direction and supervision by the employer in the course of performing the work, whether the employer is subject to designation of work hours and work place, whether the employer is bound by the employer, whether the labor provider is capable of operating his/her business on its own account, such as possessing equipment, raw materials, work tools, etc., or having a third party employ and act on behalf of him/her, and whether the risks such as the creation of profit and loss through the provision of labor are the nature of the work itself, whether the basic salary or fixed wage was determined, and whether the wage tax was withheld at source, and whether the employer has an exclusive affiliation to the employer, and whether the social security system is recognized as an employee is determined at will.

B) As seen earlier, the facts that the Plaintiffs did not receive fixed wage from the Defendant are as follows: (a) the evidence mentioned above; (b) the fact that the Plaintiffs appeared to have provided fixed and continuous work to the Defendant, such as (i) the Plaintiffs generally attend the office of 10th to 13th day (13th day per month) on a regular basis; (ii) according to the Plaintiffs’ “labor contract”, the hours of the 2nd class hours between 7:00 to 15:00; (iii) the hours of the 16:0 to 24:00; (iv) the hours of the 16:0 to 24:00; and (v) the number of hours of the 6:0 to 24:00; (v) the Plaintiffs were under the premise that the Plaintiffs were entitled to approval from the company at the time of absence; and (v) the Plaintiffs were under the premise that they were affiliated with the Defendant’s labor union and their employees; and (v) the Plaintiffs were subject to employment insurance under the Labor Standards Act.

2) Determination on whether Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act is applied

Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, which provides that “The minimum wage system is to ensure the minimum amount of wages calculated on the basis of the output and income gap of low-wages workers in taxi transport business, shall be reasonably determined so that all the workers can enjoy benefits. In light of the above, Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, which provides that “The minimum wage system is to ensure the minimum amount of wages calculated on the basis of the production of excess earnings, etc. except taxi commissions, should be reasonably determined so that all the workers can enjoy benefits. In the case of taxi workers, it is unreasonable to include the wages calculated on the basis of output, such as excess earnings, etc. except taxi commissions, in the minimum wage system.” In addition, Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, which is newly established to ensure that taxi workers would receive wages exceeding the minimum amount of wages, is excluded from the scope of wages to be included in

3) Determination on the claim for the payment of minimum wage

A) Therefore, the defendant, located in Dongducheon-si, is subject to Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act from July 1, 2010 to Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, and is obliged to calculate the minimum wage and pay the minimum wage to the plaintiffs, except for the scope of wages calculated in the minimum wage.

B) From March 1, 2011 to December 2013, the Plaintiffs’ monthly contractual hours are 152 hours, and the monthly contractual hours from January 1, 2014 are 142 hours, and the Plaintiffs’ monthly contractual days are 13 days as seen earlier. The minimum wage determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Labor under the Minimum Wage Act is 4,320 won per hour from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201, and is 4,580 won per hour from January 1, 201 to December 31, 2012 】 The Plaintiffs’ minimum wage method as stated in attached Table 4,580 won per hour, from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 to December 4, 2016 to December 14, 2014 】 (the Plaintiffs’ minimum wage rate as stated in attached Table 50,000 won per hour, respectively, based on the minimum wage rate per month.

C) Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to the "Minimum Wage" stated in the attached Table 1 and the damages for delay with respect to each of the above amounts.

C. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of good faith

1) The defendant's assertion

Even if Article 6(5) of the Family Wage Act applies to this case, the following special circumstances exist: (a) the so-called “contract system (in the case of the plaintiff’s employment contract, it shall be written in a fixed amount)” that the defendant’s taxi workers, including the plaintiffs, receive excess transportation income without fixed wage, even after the enforcement of Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act; and (b) the defendant’s choice of the above “contract system” has no choice but to maintain the “contract system; and (c) the defendant has no choice but to enter into a contract with the plaintiff and the defendant under the “contract system”; (d) the plaintiffs are asserting that the labor contract is invalid due to the violation of the Minimum Wage Act; and (e) when the plaintiffs’ minimum wage claim is accepted, the defendant suffers significant managerial difficulties or is in a stregnent situation, and thus the plaintiffs’ claim for minimum wage cannot be permitted because it violates the principle of good faith.

2) Determination

A) In order to deny the exercise of rights on the ground that the exercise of rights is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, it should be deemed that the other party provided good faith to the other party, or that the other party’s act of exercising rights against the other party’s good faith should reach a reasonable state from an objective point of view, and that the exercise of rights against the other party’s good faith should reach an irrecoverable level in light of the concept of justice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da3802, Dec.

B) In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant appears to have had sufficient time to conclude a new labor contract that is considerably unfavorable to the Defendant or workers rather than the existing labor contract under the Minimum Wage Act within the scope not contrary to the Minimum Wage Act by reasonably adjusting the standard transportation income, contractual work hours, etc. with the Defendant’s employees after the enforcement of the same period from July 1, 2010, under Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act; (b) the number of taxi companies, after the enforcement of Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, have entered into a new labor contract or labor contract that is not contrary to the Minimum Wage Act upon consultation between the labor and management; (c) the Defendant is difficult to deem that the Defendant, upon the request of the Defendant, submitted the aforementioned labor contract to the employees including the Plaintiffs, had to receive the existing “contract system” and the fixed wage higher than the minimum wage amount than the minimum wage amount than the minimum wage amount than the minimum wage amount. However, it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have continued to conclude the labor contract with the Defendant’s employees.

B) If so, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiffs' claim for the payment of the minimum wage has reached an irrecoverable level in light of the concept of justice, and there is no special circumstance to accept the preferential application of the principle of good faith despite the mandatory provisions of the Minimum Wage Act. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion based on different premise is without merit.

D. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of set-off

1) The defendant's assertion

If the part related to wages of the plaintiffs in the labor contract is invalid because it goes against the Minimum Wage Act, the part related to wages under the above labor contract is valid, and there is no legal ground for the amount in the name of wages received by the plaintiffs from the defendant. Thus, the defendant offsets the above amount against the plaintiffs' minimum wage claim with unjust enrichment

2) Determination

A) On the other hand, even if the plaintiffs received money from the defendant as wages other than the wages calculated on the basis of output, i.e., excess transport earnings, as alleged by the defendant, the part which determined the amount below the minimum wage in the labor contract between the workers and the employer subject to the minimum wage as wages shall be null and void, and in this case, the invalidated part shall be deemed to have been paid the same wages as the minimum wage amount as prescribed by this Act under this Act," and the part which is null and void under the above provision shall be limited to the part which determined the amount below the minimum wage amount in the labor contract of the plaintiffs, and the "the part which the plaintiffs received the above nominal amount" in the above labor contract shall be deemed null and void, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiffs acquired the above money without any legal grounds.

B) Therefore, the defendant's above assertion based on the different premise is without merit.

E. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mutual aid

1) The defendant's assertion

① Where the Defendant grants fixed wage equivalent to the minimum wage to the Plaintiffs, the amount calculated by subtracting the standard transport earnings that the Plaintiffs paid during the period from the base transport earnings (178,000 won in case of a day-day system, and 89,000 won in case of a day-day system) that the Plaintiffs are liable to pay to the Defendant, ② 50% of the four major insurance premiums borne by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiffs, ③ 400,000 won paid to the Plaintiffs each year as bonus for each year, ④ 100,000 won paid to the Plaintiffs as annual leave expenses, ④ the government subsidies paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs from March 201 to February 2014, ⑤ the reduced amount of value-added tax that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiffs as production allowances from 2011 to 2013 ought to be deducted from the minimum wage amount that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiffs.

2) Determination

A) Determination as to the assertion of deduction of the amount set forth in paragraph (1)-1

On the other hand, the standard transport earnings that the plaintiffs are liable to pay to the defendant shall be determined according to the labor contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims for minimum wage, the above standard transport earnings cannot be raised retroactively to the amount they claim by the defendant. According to the evidence No. A. 1, the defendant entered into a wage agreement with the headquarters of the Gyeonggi-si District Headquarters of the Gyeonggi-si Industry Workers' Union on September 30, 2010 and the standard transport earnings with the 178,000 won in the case of Japan, and 89,000 won in the case of the 1-day 2-day 1-day 2-day 2-day 2-day 8,00 won, but there is no evidence that the above labor union represents the defendant's employees including the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence that the plaintiffs agreed with the defendant to pay the standard transport earnings as alleged by the defendant. Thus,

B) Determination as to the assertion of deduction of the amount stated in paragraph (1)-2

On the other hand, even if the defendant paid 50% of the 4th insurance premium to be borne by the plaintiffs on behalf of the plaintiffs, in light of the circumstances described in the 50% of the above D. 2) Item A, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiffs made unjust enrichment, and it is not possible to find any other circumstance that the above amount should be deducted from the minimum wage amount. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C) Determination as to the assertion of deduction of the amount stated in paragraph (1)(3)

According to Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act and Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, wages included in the minimum wage of workers need to be “wages paid once or more per month according to the organization agreement, rules of employment, and payment conditions and payment rate prescribed in the employment contract,” excluding the wages calculated on the basis of the output. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 400,000 to the Plaintiffs each year as bonus, and KRW 100,000,000 paid as annual leave expenses, shall not be deemed to be a regular payment at least once per month. Thus, the above amount shall not be deemed to be included in the minimum wage, and it shall not be deducted from the minimum wage amount. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

D) Determination as to the assertion of deduction of the amount stated in paragraph (1)-4

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the above evidence, the above fuel subsidies should be attributed to the plaintiffs who have entered into a contract of "contract system" and the above fuel subsidies should be attributed to the defendant retroactively because the defendant should pay the unpaid minimum wage to the plaintiffs, and it cannot be said that the fuel subsidies already reverted to the plaintiffs should be attributed to the defendant retroactively, and no other circumstance can be found that the above fuel subsidies should be deducted from the minimum wage amount. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

E) Determination as to the assertion of deduction of the amount stated in paragraph (1)-5

(1) Article 106-4(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 732, Dec. 31, 2004) provides that “The amount of value-added tax reduced shall be used for improving the treatment and welfare of general taxi drivers under the Passenger Transport Service Act as prescribed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation.” Article 106-7(2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10285, May 14, 2010) provides that “General taxi transport business entities shall pay the amount of value-added tax reduced in cash to general taxi drivers under the Passenger Transport Service Act within one month after the end of the payment deadline for value-added tax reduced as prescribed by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the said amended provision provides that “The amount of value-added tax reduced shall be used for improving the treatment and welfare of general taxi drivers under the Passenger Transport Service Act as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.” Article 106-7(2) of the Addenda provides that the amount of value-added tax shall be reduced within 7 months.

(2) In light of the contents, legislative history, institutional purpose, and operational status, etc. of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, even if the Defendant paid the reduced amount of value-added tax to the Plaintiffs as the production allowance, it is reasonable to view that the reduced amount of value-added tax paid to the taxi driver constitutes “wages paid for the assistance to workers’ livelihood and welfare,” which are not included in the minimum wage pursuant to the proviso of Article 5-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Minimum Wage Act, as it is for the improvement of treatment and welfare of taxi drivers. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Judgment on the claim for payment of various allowances

(a) Calculation of ordinary wages;

The Plaintiffs claim various allowances based on the minimum wage amount under the Minimum Wage Act. Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act provides that “Ordinary wage refers to hourly wage, daily wage, weekly wage, weekly wage, monthly wage, or contract amount, which shall be paid to an employee for contractual or total labor on a regular and uniform basis.” However, the Plaintiffs brought excess transport earnings as remuneration for labor (However, it is excluded from the scope of wages included in the “minimum wage” under Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act, and this is a regular and uniform nature; the Defendant asserts that the amount of excess transport income brought by the Plaintiffs exceeds the minimum wage amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1 and 2). In full view of the fact that the portion of wages determined as wages under a labor contract between an employee and an employer under Article 6(3) of the Minimum Wage Act is null and void, and the invalidated portion is deemed to be paid the same as the minimum wage amount under the Minimum Wage Act.

B. Determination on the claim for annual paid leave allowance

1) According to the provisions of Articles 60 and 61 of the Labor Standards Act, an employer is obligated to pay the annual paid leave which the employee has not employed. Since the Plaintiffs’ number of days of annual paid leave that the Plaintiffs had not used is the same as the corresponding number of days of annual paid leave that the Plaintiffs used in attached Table 2 is recognized as above, the unpaid annual paid leave allowance is calculated as shown in attached Table 2, if the amount of annual paid leave allowance is calculated as shown in attached Table 2, the unpaid annual paid leave allowance is equal to each corresponding amount of money in attached Table 1.

2) Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the amount corresponding to the “annual paid leave allowance” stated in attached Table 1 and the damages for delay with respect to each of the above amounts.

C. Determination on the claim for payment of night work allowance

1) According to Article 56 of the Labor Standards Act, an employer is obligated to pay for night work allowances calculated by adding 50/100 or more of the ordinary wages to night work. Since the facts identical to each of the pertinent hours of the Plaintiffs’ night work hours in attached Table 2 are as shown earlier, the unpaid night work allowance is calculated as shown in attached Table 2, based on the above ordinary wages, if the unpaid night work allowance is calculated as shown in attached Table 2, the unpaid night work allowance is as listed in attached Table 1.

2) Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the amount corresponding to each of the pertinent money stated in the “ Night Work Allowance” column of attached Table 1 and damages for delay on each of the above money.

D. Determination on the claim for payment of paid holiday allowances

1) Since the Workers’ Day Designation Act provides that “The Workers’ Day Day shall be May 1 and this day shall be paid as paid holidays under the Labor Standards Act, the employer is obligated to pay the relevant allowance to workers who worked on the Workers’ Day. The facts such as the Plaintiffs’ Workers’ Day’ Day’ Work Day’ in the Schedule No. 2 are recognized as above. Therefore, if the paid holiday allowance is calculated based on the above ordinary wage as shown in the Schedule No. 2 attached hereto, the unpaid paid holiday allowance is equal to the amount corresponding to the “paid holiday allowance” column in attached Table 1.

2) Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the amount corresponding to each of the corresponding money stated in the attached Table 1’s “paid holiday allowance” and the damages for delay with respect to each of the above money.

E. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) The Defendant concluded a labor contract with the Defendant under which the Plaintiffs would receive various allowances only when they choose a monthly wage system, and would not receive such allowances if they choose a “contract system” rather than a “monthly wage system.” As such, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs who selected the contract system cannot claim the above allowances, but the aforementioned allowances are legal allowances recognized under the Labor Standards Act, which are mandatory laws, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for each of the above allowances cannot be avoided solely on the basis of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

2) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs’ labor contract constitutes a wage payment contract in the inclusive wage system, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs concluded a wage payment contract in the inclusive wage system with the Defendant solely based on the evidence submitted by the Defendant. Furthermore, unless there are special circumstances to deem it difficult to calculate working hours otherwise, the principle of wage payment according to the working hours under the Labor Standards Act shall apply. Thus, even in such a case, entering into a wage contract in the inclusive wage system with the content that a certain amount of working hours is paid as statutory allowances regardless of the number of working hours is not permissible so long as it violates the Labor Standards Act, and even though there are no circumstances such as it is difficult to calculate working hours, if the fixed amount of working hours included in the inclusive wage system falls short of the statutory allowances calculated in accordance with the standard under the Labor Standards Act, the part of wage payment contract in the inclusive wage system is invalid against the employees, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs’ wage payment contract falls short of the statutory allowances under the principle of demotion and supplement of the Labor Standards Act to be concluded by the Defendant as a single wage system.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to the "total" in attached Table 1, which is the sum of the unpaid minimum wage, annual paid leave allowance, night work allowance, and paid holiday allowance, and each of the above amounts, calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 12, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted

[Attachment]

Judge Limited-hun (Presiding Judge)