The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1.(a)

Article 6(1) of the Minimum Wage Act provides that “An employer shall pay the employee to whom the minimum wage applies the wages above the minimum wage amount,” and Article 6(3) provides that “The part where the amount below the minimum wage amount among the labor contracts between the employee to whom the minimum wage applies and the employer is determined as wages shall be null and void, and in such cases, the invalidated part shall be deemed to have been paid the same wage as the

However, in the case of an employee engaged in driving service in the passenger taxi transport business (hereinafter “taxing employee”), the scope of wages included in the minimum wage is limited to wages prescribed by Presidential Decree “excluding wages calculated on the basis of the output” under Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act amended by Act No. 8818, Dec. 27, 2007.

(2) Article 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “The wages paid once or more per month according to the terms and conditions of payment and payment rate prescribed in the collective agreement, employment rules, and labor contract shall be included in the minimum wage.” However, in the case of “wages other than those paid for the prescribed working hours or prescribed working days” and “wages paid for the support of workers’ livelihood and their welfare,” it shall not be included in the minimum wage.

The purport of the amended Minimum Wage Act, which prevents taxi drivers from including wages based on the output in the minimum wage through the instant special provision, is to ensure that taxi drivers can receive wages exceeding the minimum wage amount even if transport income is low, by raising the percentage of the fixed wage out of the total wage paid to them.