1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company running taxi transport business.

The Plaintiff, as employed by the Defendant, was dismissed on July 31, 2015 while serving as a taxi driver from January 30, 2015, and was reinstated on December 31, 2015, but was reappointed on January 9, 2016.

B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff a work allowance and a work lodging allowance (hereinafter “each of the instant allowances”). The Defendant did not include each of the instant allowances in ordinary wages, calculated night work allowances, and paid them.

C. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant immediately dismissed the Plaintiff on July 31, 2015, and did not pay the full amount of the ordinary wages for at least 30 days with the advance notice of dismissal allowances.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 6, 13, 15, and 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant allowances constitute ordinary wages regularly and uniformly. Nevertheless, the Defendant paid night work allowances on the basis of ordinary wages calculated on the basis of the amount of wages other than each of the instant allowances. Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff for night work allowances of KRW 486,100, totaling KRW 470,970, totaling KRW 957,070, and delay damages for unpaid dismissal allowances of KRW 486,100, based on the ordinary wages added to each of the instant allowances from January 2015 to January 2016.

② According to the wage agreement between C and D regional headquarters and the wage agreement between the defendant and workers, the scope of ordinary wages includes only basic wages and continuous service allowances, and excludes each of the instant allowances. Since each of the instant allowances is paid as additional wages including ordinary wages, the company’s operation is difficult, the Plaintiff’s claim is in violation of the good faith principle.

(3)