Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 1: Employee
1. General
1.2 Whether or not he is a self-employed person in determining the existence of employee status
| Supreme Court Decision No. 2013DA77805, rendered on November 13, 2014. | |||||
| Plaintiff, Appellant: A Defendant, Appellee: KEPCO Industrial Development Co., Ltd. Facts a. The defendant, KEPCO Industrial Development Co., Ltd., is a company entrusted with tasks such as meter reading and delivery of electricity bills by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), as well as disconnection (disconnection) and reconnection (reconnection) for customers with unpaid electricity bills. The company assigned these entrusted tasks not only to regular employees under labor contracts but also to contract workers who had entered into outsourcing contracts. b. The contract workers responsible for meter reading duties would report to the defendant's branch office, receive handheld terminals (PDAs) from KEPCO, input the electricity usage of households in their assigned areas into the terminal based on meter reading records, and compile a list of 'customers subject to review' accordingly. They also performed ancillary tasks such as meeting with customers as part of the "Meet 20 Customers a Day" campaign, conducting interviews and guidance for customers with excessive or insufficient electricity usage, handling customer-related matters such as changes in account holders or electricity usage, and monitoring streetlight meters and security lights. c. The contract workers responsible for delivery duties would report to the defendant's branch office, collect electricity bills and automatic payment receipts, go out on fieldwork to directly deliver them to customers, and compile a 'delivery daily report' summarizing the day's activities. They also performed ancillary tasks such as meeting with customers as part of the "Meet 20 Customers a Day" campaign, conducting interviews and guidance for customers with disconnection notices, and handling customer-related matters such as changes in phone numbers, account holders, business names, or addresses. Additionally, the contract workers took turns answering phone inquiries without distinction from regular employees, and they were not allowed to subcontract their tasks to third parties. d. The defendant, upon entering into outsourcing contracts, assigned one of the tasks—meter reading, delivery, or disconnection—to the contract workers. When renewing outsourcing contracts, the tasks could be changed, and the defendant generally assigned work areas without distinguishing between contract workers and regular employees. e. After the Korea Electric Power Corporation established detailed guidelines for "Meter Reading and Delivery" and "Disconnection and Reconnection," the defendant implemented them. The contract workers performed their duties in accordance with these guidelines, and the defendant established "Contract Worker Management Guidelines" and enacted "Sales Task Processing Guidelines" for the contract workers. f. Pursuant to the "Contract Worker Management Guidelines," the defendant evaluated the job performance and work attitudes of the contract workers annually. If a contract worker scored below 70 points, termination was considered; if the score was below 74 points, work suspension was imposed; and if the score was below 79 points, work volume adjustments were made. Additionally, the defendant notified contract workers who violated the "Sales Task Processing Guidelines," provided relevant training, and required them to submit acknowledgment letters expressing their understanding or remorse. Judgment a. Whether the contract workers qualify as employees under labor standards law should be determined based on whether they provided labor to the company with the aim of receiving wages, rather than the form of the contract, whether employment or subcontract. b. In the case where KEPCO Industrial Development Co., Ltd., entered into an outsourcing contract with the Korea Electric Power Corporation to perform tasks such as meter reading, delivery of electricity bills, disconnection, and reconnection for customers with unpaid electricity bills, and the issue arose as to whether the contract workers performing these tasks qualify as employees under labor standards law, the appellate court concluded that there was a significant incentive for the company to exercise considerable supervision over the contract workers' tasks to ensure proper performance, considering that meter reading and delivery tasks were essential and crucial tasks for the company. Furthermore, the contract workers were unable to expand their income by attracting customers or subcontracting their tasks to third parties. Therefore, there was a strong possibility that the contract workers provided labor to the company with the aim of receiving wages, making them employees under labor standards law. However, contrary to this, the lower court judgment was deemed to be erroneous due to misinterpretation of the law. |
|||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents