Supreme Court: "Sanctions Justified for Taxi Drivers Not Affiliated with the Company"

1st Trial "Business License Cancellation Justified" → 2nd Trial "Company-Driver Subordination"
Supreme Court "Even if Only One Person Not Affiliated with Company Was Provided One Taxi, It Is a 'Contracted Taxi'"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that entrusting taxi driving to a person who is not an employee of the company constitutes an illegal "contract taxi" under current law, and that sanctions are justified.

Even if a taxi company provided only one taxi to one person who is not a taxi driver affiliated with the company, it was considered a violation of Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the Taxi Development Act, which prohibits contract taxis, and thus grounds for sanctions. A contract taxi refers to an illegal form of taxi operation where a vehicle is rented out to a person without taxi driving qualifications rather than a formally employed driver.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Park Jeong-hwa) announced on the 14th that it overturned the lower court ruling, which had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, in the appeal case filed by Taxi Company A against the cancellation of its taxi transportation business license by the mayor of Cheongju, and remanded the case to the Daejeon High Court.

Cheongju City found that the company had 137 drivers operating taxis under the company’s name without labor contracts or the four major social insurances, and based on its own investigation and police investigations in 2018, canceled the taxi transportation business license.

The first trial upheld the city's cancellation of the business license as legitimate, but the second trial ruled in favor of the company, stating that it was difficult to conclude that the drivers were not affiliated with the company and that most were under the company’s general supervision and control in a dependent relationship.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision, stating that there is sufficient reason to consider them as "persons who are not affiliated taxi drivers" under the Taxi Development Act.

The court pointed out, "The appellate court focused only on the fact that some drivers signed pledges regarding compliance with traffic laws, safe driving, reporting obligations to the company, and adherence to employment rules and collective agreements."

It added, "The appellate court did not fully examine whether the company verified if the drivers properly fulfilled these obligations as stated in the pledges, or whether the company took appropriate disciplinary actions against drivers found to have violated obligations such as speeding or reckless driving," and remanded the case for further review.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.