Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 1: Employees
2. Determination of the Existence of Executive's and Internal Subcontractor[so-sa-jang]'s Employee Status under the Labor Standards Act
2.1 Registered Executive
| Supreme Court Decision No. 2017DU46899, rendered on September 7, 2017 (Recognition of Employee Status for Registered Director) | |||||
| Plaintiff and Appellant: A Defendant and Appellee: Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service Facts a. The plaintiff's father, Soe 1, around 1997 in ○○ City, established and operated a poultry farm named "○○ Farm," initially constructing a residence and a chicken coop. On February 6, 2006, the organization was restructured, and "○○ Agricultural Cooperative Corporation" was established, with Soe 1 assuming the position of representative director. b. On January 30, 2006, the plaintiff became a member of the cooperative by contributing 15,000,000 won (approximately 15.8% of the total capital at the time of establishment) as capital. Until the occurrence of the incident on February 4, 2015, the plaintiff was registered as one of the four directors of the corporation formed thereafter. However, the corporation did not hold any board meetings or distribute profits to members until the incident date. c. The operations of the poultry farm involved roughly two main tasks: (1) collecting and sorting eggs for distribution and (2) collecting manure for composting, packaging, and distribution. Typically, two out of the four individuals worked on egg-related tasks, while the other two handled manure-related tasks. During the busy autumn season, three temporary male laborers were hired to assist with manure-related tasks. d. The plaintiff primarily handled manure-related tasks at the poultry farm from the time of the "○○ Farm" era to the incident date, and occasionally undertook minor repair work on malfunctioning machinery. The plaintiff worked from 08:00 to 18:00 on regular days, sometimes extending work hours to 19:00 or 20:00, while the other three individuals, excluding the plaintiff, worked from 09:00 to 17:00 or 18:00. e. The corporation, since its establishment around October 20, 2007, promptly completed the registration process for the formation of the four major insurances (national pension, national health insurance, employment insurance, and industrial accident insurance) with the National Pension Service, National Health Insurance Corporation, and the defendant, Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, and consistently paid the four major insurance premiums for the plaintiff until the incident date. f. There is no evidence indicating that the plaintiff purchased equipment or tools for work or subcontracted tasks to third parties while working at the poultry farm. g. Significant decisions regarding fund management and shipments at the poultry farm were made by Soe 1, the plaintiff's father, while day-to-day instructions for the four employees were given by Soe 4, the plaintiff's mother. The corporation did not routinely create employment contracts or establish rules and regulations, but instead calculated and disbursed monthly "payroll statements" to the three individuals, including the plaintiff, after deducting four major insurance premiums, income tax, and resident tax, and remitted the net amount to each financial account. Judgment a. According to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the term "employee" refers to individuals defined as employees under the Labor Standards Act. Even if a corporate executive, such as a director or auditor, holds a formal or nominal position, if they actually provide labor under the supervision or command of the employer and receive compensation in return, other than merely performing duties delegated by the company or executing tasks under the supervision of the representative director, they are considered employees under the Labor Standards Act. b. The monthly salary paid to the plaintiff appears to be within the range of average or median income for wage workers in South Korea. The difference in monthly salaries between the plaintiff and Soe 2 and Soe 3 is not significantly large. Considering that the plaintiff, compared to the other two, worked longer hours on regular days and engaged in physically demanding labor related to manure, and that the plaintiff's age was approximately 17 to 25 years younger than the other two, it is difficult to assess that the plaintiff's monthly salary includes business income (profit sharing). c. The plaintiff worked at the poultry farm, confined to certain working hours and locations, without owning equipment or hiring third parties for tasks, and consistently received a fixed amount of salary regardless of the corporation's business performance. Furthermore, the corporation completed insurance-related procedures and continued to pay the four major insurance premiums for the plaintiff until the incident date under the assumption that the plaintiff provided labor for wages under the supervision and control of the representative director, Soe 1. Therefore, there is considerable justification to regard the plaintiff as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. |
|||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents