All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2016Da9261, 9278 Decided July 11, 2018 【Wages, Etc.; Restitution of Unjust Enrichment】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Intent of Article 6(5) of the Minimum Wage Act (amended by Act No. 8818, Dec. 27, 2007), which precluded the inclusion of wages calculated on the basis of the output in the minimum wage Effect of the part on a labor contract, which sets wage amounts at less than the minimum wage as a result of applying the above provision (invalid) [2] Meaning of good faith and requirements for rejecting the exercise of rights on the ground of a violation of good faith Where the substance of a labor and management agreement, such as a collective agreement, is in violation of an imperative provision, i.e., the Labor Standards Act, whether arguing the invalidity thereof is in breach of the good faith principle (negative in principle) [3] In a case that involves: (a) Incorporated Company A (hereinafter “Company A”) operating a taxi transportation business, whose labor and management agreed to sign a labor contract on an individual driver basis, which offers drivers an option to choose the method of wage payment, between (i) a so-called piecework contract in which drivers take what is left after paying a commission out of taxi earnings over to the company (hereinafter “excess taxi earnings”); or (ii) a time rate contract in which drivers are paid a monthly wage; (b) based on this agreement, Taxi Driver B and some employees working at Company A (hereinafter “Driver B, etc.”) signed on a piecework contract; and (c) subsequently, Driver B, etc. filed a claim for payment of the unpaid minimum wage against Company A, arguing that the labor contract at issue was concluded in violation of the Minimum Wage Act, the case holding that the lower court, which dismissed the argument of Driver B, etc. on the ground that it was inconsistent with the good faith principle, erred in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principle |
|
