logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2019.11.27 2019누1624
택시운송비용(유류비)전가 금지위반에 따른 경고처분 취소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Grounds for a disposition and for a court’s reasoning to this part of the relevant statutes are as follows: (a) and (b) of the judgment of the first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. According to the circumstances leading up to the existence of the reasons for the disposition, taxi drivers belonging to the plaintiffs paid LPG transportation expenses (oiling expense) to the users with the fare or charge (transport income). The amount equivalent to the settled oil expenses was deducted from the transport income that the plaintiffs should pay to the plaintiffs. The gas filling station deposited LPG transportation expenses received from the taxi drivers belonging to the plaintiffs into the plaintiffs' company account on the following day, and paid the price by the plaintiffs if the request for subsequent payment was made later.

However, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the instant agreement, “The minimum standard amount excluding the LPG transport cost to calculate wages to workers during the total transport per day (from January 2018 to 118,000 won)” was determined in the aggregate of the minimum daily standard amount of transport income of taxi drivers belonging to the Plaintiffs and the amount equivalent to the LPG transport cost of KRW 105,00 to 118,000,00. In fact, the taxi drivers belonging to the Plaintiffs deducted the amount equivalent to the fuel cost from the total transport income and paid KRW 105,00 to 118,00,000 to the Plaintiffs, and the examples in the judgment of the first instance are as follows: (a) of Article 2(1), (2) and (3) of the instant Convention is excluded from the minimum daily standard amount of transport income (which is the basis amount of transport expense).

A No. 1 No.

arrow