[Plaintiffs, Appellants] Lee Gyu-bang and 3 others, Plaintiffs' Attorney Lee Il-jae
[Defendant, Appellee] Samki Tongsan Co., Ltd., Defendant's Attorney Ryu Won-jong
[Judgment Below]
Seoul High Court Judgment 86Na2727, rendered January 21, 1987
[Order]
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.
[Reasoning] As to the grounds of appeal of the Plaintiffs' attorney,
1.
A collective agreement concluded pursuant to an adjustment decision made by the competent authority under Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Special Measures Act Concerning National Security (국가보위에관한특별조치법, repealed December 17, 1981) has the same nature and effect as a collective agreement provided for in Chapter 3 of the Labor Union Act (노동조합법) (see this Court's Decision 82Do3216, rendered July 12, 1983), and therefore, in principle, its effect extends to the members of the labor union and the employer who delegated the authority to conclude the said collective agreement. However, in order for the said collective agreement to have regional binding force, it must satisfy the requirements set forth in Article 38 of the Labor Union Act.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found as follows: on May 8, 1980, based on a collective agreement resulting from the collective bargaining adjustment by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who was the competent authority under the aforementioned Special Measures Act, concluded between the Seoul Branch of the National Automobile Workers' Union and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Taxi Transport Association, the Defendant paid wages in accordance with the adjustment decision to the Plaintiffs, who are taxi drivers, until May 7, 1981, the deadline for implementation of the adjustment decision. However, when the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City made a new collective bargaining adjustment decision around August 1981, after the expiration of the period of the previous adjustment decision, the Defendant had not filed an application for adjustment and was thus not a party concerned with respect to that adjustment decision. Accordingly, from May 8, 1981, the Defendant, together with the drivers under its employ, including the Plaintiffs, determined the quota (fixed remittance amount, "sanapgeum") through labor-management consultation and individual employment contracts, and received only the agreed quota amount. Based on these findings, the court below rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that, even though the Defendant did not file an application for adjustment with respect to the new adjustment decision made by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City in August 1981, the effect of the adjustment decision nevertheless extended to the Defendant as a matter of course pursuant to the aforementioned Special Measures Act. The above factual findings and determination of the court below are justified, and there is no error of misapprehension of law as argued in the grounds of appeal. Furthermore, the measure taken by the court below in rejecting the Plaintiffs' argument that the employment contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was executed under duress is also justified, and no violation of the rules of evidence as argued in the grounds of appeal can be found. This ground of appeal is without merit.
2.
In the case of a so-called daily piece-rate employment contract, whereby the amount remaining after deducting the fixed quota amount ("sanapgeum") from a taxi driver's total daily revenue becomes the individual driver's personal income, it must be considered that the various allowances prescribed under the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) are included in the driver's personal income (see this Court's Decision 84Do1861, rendered March 26, 1985).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the employment contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, up until September 30, 1982, was a daily piece-rate employment contract, under which the various allowances prescribed under the Labor Standards Act were included in the individual driver's income, and that thereafter, as a preparatory step for the implementation of the monthly salary system, the Defendant agreed to separately pay, among the various allowances prescribed under the Labor Standards Act, the weekly and monthly leave allowances, and paid such weekly and monthly leave allowances accordingly. The factual findings of the court below are justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the process thereof as argued in the grounds of appeal, and the determination of the court below is also justified in light of the legal principles set forth above, and there is no error of misapprehension of law regarding the various allowances under the Labor Standards Act.
Moreover, the factual findings of the court below with respect to the other factual matters can be accepted in light of the evidence cited in the judgment below, and therefore the arguments in the grounds of appeal ultimately amount to no more than a challenge to the court below's selection and evaluation of evidence and its fact-finding, which falls within the exclusive authority of the court below, and thus cannot be accepted. This ground of appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the deliberation.
Presiding Justice Yoon Kwan, Justice Kim Hyung-ki, Justice Park Woo-dong