[Plaintiff, Appellee] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellant] Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service
[Judgment Below] Busan High Court Judgment 97Gu17308, decided August 19, 1998
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
We examine the grounds of appeal.
First, as to the Defendant's pre-merits objection (본안전항변), the court below, upon comprehensive consideration of the evidence it adopted in its judgment, found that the Plaintiff had filed the request for reexamination within the lawful period after being served with the decision on the request for examination. Upon review of the record in light of this finding, the above determination of the court below is justified, and it cannot be said that there was any illegality affecting the judgment due to a violation of the rules of experience or the rules of evidence, as argued. This ground of appeal is without merit.
Further, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, upon comprehensive consideration of the relevant evidence, found the following facts: that the deceased non-party (hereinafter "the Deceased") was employed by Samwoo Transportation Co., Ltd. (유한회사 삼우교통, a limited liability company; hereinafter "the Non-Party Company"), which received from its employed drivers, including the Deceased, a fixed amount out of the daily transportation revenue as a quota payment (사납금) (the "9,000 won" quota amount referred to at the time in the judgment below appears to be a clerical error for "96,000 won"), and used this as a source of funds to pay its employed drivers a fixed monthly amount in the name of basic pay and the like; that the drivers of the Non-Party Company did not remit to the Non-Party Company the remainder of the transportation revenue after deducting the above quota payment, and the Company likewise did not demand such remittance, such that this remainder was, in effect, treated as the individual income of each driver and left to their free disposal; and that, at the time of the accident in this case, the taxi drivers of the Non-Party Company were treating approximately 100,000 won per day, out of the transportation revenue remaining after deduction of the quota payment, as their individual income. Based on these findings, the court below determined as follows: where, as found above, a transportation company pays its employed taxi drivers a fixed monthly wage according to their actual days worked, and additionally leaves to the drivers' free disposal, as their individual income, the remainder of the daily transportation revenue after deduction of the quota payment, the portion remaining after deduction of the quota payment—which becomes the driver's individual income—must also be considered payment made in return for labor, in consideration of the particular nature of the working conditions of commercial taxi drivers and the convenience of calculation, and thus likewise constitutes wages (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da36192, decided December 24, 1993, and 96Nu17905, decided March 25, 1997, among others). Accordingly, in calculating the average wage (평균임금), which serves as the basis for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법), the remaining revenue after deduction of the quota payment must also be included therein. On this basis, the court below determined that the Defendant's disposition—calculating the average wage based solely on the salary the Deceased received directly from the Non-Party Company, without including in wages the portion of transportation revenue that constituted the Deceased's individual income, then paying survivor benefits and other insurance benefits based on that average wage, and disapproving the Plaintiff's application to correct the average wage—was unlawful. Upon review of the record, the factual findings and determination of the court below are deemed justified, and the Supreme Court precedents cited in the argument concern different factual circumstances and cannot be regarded as appropriate precedents applicable to this case. This ground of appeal is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This Judgment is rendered as stated in the Order, with the unanimous consent of the participating Justices.
Justice Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice), Lee Don-hui, Lee Im-su (Justice in Charge), Song Jin-hoon