1. Summary
A defeated candidate of a provincial school superintendant election held July 2nd (hereinafter referred to as the Candidate), and a representative of his election campaign staff visited Kangnam Labor Law Firm and requested confirmation of the existence of unpaid wages. The Candidate registered his candidacy for school superintendant of 000 province on May 14, 2010, hired 339 staff for his election campaign, which took place over 13 days (May 20 to June 1, 2010), but did not pay 247,485,920 won in wages. The Candidate wanted to pay the withheld wages with a portion of about 2 billion won from a National Election Commission subsidy, but as the Candidate was put under provisional attachment from debts related to this and a previous election campaign, which equaled three times more than the expected National Election Commission subsidy, he was at that point unable to pay the wages.
The major legal issues in this case of unpaid wages were 1) whether the Labor Standards Act applies to the election campaign workplace, and 2) whether election campaign staff in this case are considered employees under the Labor Standards Act. As election campaign staff are considered employees, unpaid wages for an election campaign period shall be reimbursed preferentially by the court's distribution procedures according to Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act (Preferential Reimbursement for Wage Claims). This article stipulates that employee claims for wages during election campaigns shall be paid before any other obligations, taxes, public levies or other claims secured by pledges or mortgages, on the total assets of an employer.
The labor inspector in charge of this case delayed confirming the existence of unpaid wages because he was uncertain whether to regard election campaign staff as employees. However, this labor attorney verified that election campaign staff were not volunteers pursuing their political inclinations, but were employees who provided labor services in return for daily wages. In addition, the labor attorney quoted a judicial ruling related to election campaign staff and explained that in this case, the election campaign staff were employees who provided labor service for the purpose of earning money just like daily workers. Fortunately, the election campaign staff were able to receive a letter confirming the existence of unpaid wages from the Labor Office on July 30th and submitted to the court.
I would like to review the employee characteristics of election campaign staff below.
2. Actual Situation
(1) From May 20 to June 1, 2010, 339 election campaign staff worked 13 days at the election office of the Candidate, who ran for provincial school superintendent of the fifth simultaneous local elections on June 2, 2010.

(2) The election campaign staff were classified into campaign managers (37) and campaign staff (302). The campaign managers were hired and worked under the direction and supervision of the candidate, but the campaign staff were hired and worked under the direction and supervision of the campaign managers. The campaign staff were supposed to receive 70,000 won in daily wages as declared by the National Election Commission, and the campaign managers were supposed to receive 90,000 won, (an additional allowance of 20,000 won above the campaign staff).

(3) As for working situation, the campaign managers were each assigned to a city, Gun (rural district), and Gu (city district) and engaged in campaigning under the direct orders of the candidate. The campaign staff were assigned to designated areas like a crowded street with a lot of traffic during rush hour, and engaged in campaigning, but during the rest of the day, they promoted the Candidate to their relatives and friends on the phone, under the direction and supervision of the campaign managers.

3. Review of Related Judicial Rulings on Election Campaign staff
(1) Election offices and election campaign staff for a lawmaker are respectively considered workplaces and employees under the Labor Standards Act Supreme Court ruling on Oct 26, 2007, 2005 do 9528

The scope of application in the Labor Standards Act (Article 11) regulates, This Act shall apply to all businesses or workplaces in which five or more workers are ordinarily employed. This workplace refers to designated workplaces or parts of a business implemented to do all kinds of continuous work as activities under a systematically organized body. The Labor Standards Act applies to this kind of workplace, even though it is a one-time business or operates only temporarily, without limitations to the type of business nor whether it is for profit or a non-profit organization. As article 2 of the Labor Standards Act does not stipulate the specific kinds of work an employee is engaged in, work for a political body belongs to a business, workplace, or a job, as defined by the Labor Standards Act.
The Candidate set up an election office to organize his campaign, hired people to be paid on a daily basis, had them participate in election campaigning under his command and supervision, and required their work for a period of time (13 days). In this case, this operation shall be considered as a workplace as stipulated by the Labor Standards Act (Article 11). Although the election campaign staff were designated for and registered with the National Election, if they had an agreement with the Candidate to be paid a daily wage and they provided contractual labor service under the Candidate's direction and supervision, they are considered employees under the Labor Standards Act.

(2) Work for a political body is considered to be a business or workplace, or job to which the Labor Standards Act applies. Busan District Court ruling on Dec 3, 2009, 2009no3338

Another candidate trying to be elected as a lawmaker hired 30 employees for his election campaign, but did not pay wages to 25 of his employees. For this violation, the candidate was fined 4 million won. The candidate then appealed to a higher court, claiming that the 25 election campaign staff were volunteers without pay and that he did not hire them as employees. However, the court rejected his appeal because there was clear evidence that the 25 persons were employees that he had hired.

4. Conclusion
We received a letter from the Labor Office confirming the existence of unpaid wages for 339 persons in this case for unpaid wages to the election campaign staff, confirming that election campaign staff are employees. This case officially confirms that election campaign staff are considered employees under the protection of the Labor Standards Act. As this case is very similar to a previous judicial ruling (Busan District Court 2009no3338) on election campaign staff characteristics as employees, I would like to give the following explanation of the reasons for referring to the judicial ruling and applying our case:
① An election volunteer cannot receive any financial payment related to election campaigning, according to Article 135 (3) of the Public Position Election Act, in election campaigns. However, election campaign staff can receive an allowance and reimbursement of actual expenses according to Article 135 (1) of the Public Position Election Act, and hereby the allowance is characteristic of wages.
② Election campaign staff were registered as election staff for the Candidate related to this case and participated in election campaigning for the Candidate from May 20, 2010 to June 1.
③ Daily allowance for the election campaign staff and managers in this case was previously determined to be 70,000 won and 90,000 won, respectively, and they worked to earn this money.
④ The main purpose for becoming part of the election campaign staff was to provide labor service for the election campaign of the Candidate and in return to receive remuneration. They did not work as volunteers without pay.
⑤ In reviewing the details of this case, and the situations before and after, although the Candidate did not make written employment contracts with the 339 election campaign staff, it is very evident that he hired them as employees to use for his election campaign. Therefore, when the Candidate did not pay wages within 14 days after the end of election campaigning (termination of employment), this was a clear violation of Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act (Payment of Money and Valuables).