Supreme Court Rules Excess Transportation Income Not Included in Severance Pay Calculation

[서울=뉴스핌] Reporter Lee Seong-hwa = The Supreme Court ruled that the excess transportation revenues that taxi drivers take from passengers’ income, excluding private payments to the company, are not included in wages for calculating severance pay.

The first division of the Supreme Court (presiding judge, Chief Justice Noh Tae-ak) announced on the 11th that Mr. A broke the lower court ruling in favor of some of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit for severance pay filed by Mr. A against taxi company B and sent the case back to the Suwon District Court.

Mr. A worked as a taxi driver at Company B and retired in December 2015. He received 2.23 million won as severance pay for his work from October 2011 to December 2015, excluding the severance pay paid interimly by the company in January of the following year.

In response, Mr. A filed a lawsuit claiming that the excess transportation income should be included in the average wage, which is the basis for calculating the severance pay, and that the period of service before the interim settlement should be included in the severance pay.

Since around 2004, drivers belonging to Company B, such as Mr. A, have paid a certain amount of private payment from transportation revenue to the company, and paid wages in the form of a flat-rate private payment system in which the remaining transportation revenue (excess transportation revenue) and fixed wages (basic salary and other allowances) are taken. received.

The first trial accepted some of Mr. A’s argument and recalculated the average daily wage, and accordingly, Company B ordered to pay an additional 2.49 million won in severance pay.

However, it did not accept the claim for excess transportation revenue, saying, “The excess transportation revenue claimed by the plaintiff does not fall under the part that the defendant can manage or control, so it is not included in the average wage, which is the basis for calculating severance pay.”

However, the appellate court decided differently from the first trial. The Court of Appeal said, “In this case, between October and December 2015, the average wage calculation period for calculating severance pay, credit card payment for taxi rides became common, and the actual card payment was first deposited in full to the defendant, the business operator. operated,” he explained.

He added, “As for the excess transportation income claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant can say that there was sufficient manageability or controllability, so it should be included in the calculation of average wages.”

The appeals court determined that the unpaid severance pay to be paid to Mr. A was a total of 6.95 million won after calculating the excess transportation income (monthly average of 1.44 million won) for the three months immediately preceding Mr. A’s resignation date as the average wage.

The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the appellate court again, saying, “The part of the lower court that claimed the difference in severance pay related to the excess transportation income was destroyed.”

According to the wage agreement signed between Company B and the labor union of Company B, it is a rule that all employees deposit the entire transportation income to the company, but it is stipulated that only the private payment is deposited and the excess transportation income is returned to the employee’s income and not included in the calculation of severance pay. .

The Supreme Court said, “It appears that the plaintiff deposited only the personal payment to the defendant under the wage agreement and attributed the excess transportation revenue to personal income without notifying the defendant.” Unless there are special circumstances, it can be seen that there was no possibility of management or control.”

In addition, “In view of the card payment amount shown in the plaintiff’s driving record, the monthly card payment amount does not reach the monthly payment amount, and the plaintiff seems to have paid the insufficient amount to the defendant in cash.” It only appears to be a part, so it corresponds to a part that is difficult for the defendant to grasp or that cannot be involved.”

At the same time, he said, “In the lower court’s ruling, there was a mistake in misunderstanding the legal principles related to average wage calculation and making a judgment contrary to the Supreme Court precedent.”

[email protected]