logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.08.12 2019나10487
부당이득금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiff's total costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

Reasons

1. The scope of this Court’s trial before remanding the Plaintiff to the Defendants, the remainder, other than the increased portion of taxi commission, was already determined by the judgment of remand, was excluded from this Court’s judgment.

Therefore, this part of the claim for the increase in the above taxi commission is subject to the judgment of this Court.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a company that provides general taxi transportation services in Jeonju-si, had its taxi drivers pay a certain amount of the daily total transport earnings to the Plaintiff, and the remainder of the transport earnings excluding this (hereinafter “excess taxi earnings”) operated the so-called taxi commission scheme, which is the method of taxi drivers’ income.

Plaintiff

According to the wage agreement in 2008 concluded on October 24, 2008 with the HA trade union organized as taxi drivers belonging to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant trade union”), contractual work hours were determined as “6 hours and 40 hours per day, 40 hours per week, 73,000 won per day, or 77,000 won per day, or 95,000 won for the first day, or 97,000 won for the first day.”

B. Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act newly established on December 27, 2007 (hereinafter “instant provision”) limited the scope of the wages included in the minimum wage of taxi drivers to the wages “other than wages calculated on the basis of output” so that excess taxi earnings cannot be included in the minimum wage. The enforcement date was July 1, 2010 in the city area.

Accordingly, since July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff, who is running a business in the Jeonju City, has to pay wages above the minimum wage level only with the fixed wage for contractual work hours.

C. The Plaintiff and the instant trade union were negotiated to enter into a wage agreement from June 29, 2010 to June 2010, and both labor and management parties around August 2010 are the same in accordance with the Addenda of the Minimum Wage Act.

arrow