Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 1: Employee
1. General
1.3 Whether or Not Payments Made are Considered as Remuneration for Work in Determining the Existence of Employee Status
| Daegu District Court Decision No. 2015NA301869, rendered on August 21, 2015 | |||||
| Plaintiff, Appellant: Park ○○ and 3 others Defendant, Appellee: ○○ Metropolitan City Facts a. The defendant, ○○ Metropolitan City, advertised recruitment for volunteers for the "Learning Zone Guardian Volunteer Group" on the websites of each school it operates, following which the plaintiffs submitted volunteer applications to each school and were selected as learning zone guardians. b. The plaintiffs, as learning zone guardians, engaged in activities such as guiding students to and from school, traffic safety guidance, patrolling inside and outside the school, and leading efforts to prevent school violence and protect victimized students. They received daily activity allowances of 20,000 to 30,000 won from each school and were provided with operational expenses up to a maximum of 100,000 won per month (increased to 200,000 won from 2009 onwards), without being covered by industrial accident insurance or employment insurance. The plaintiffs did not raise any objections regarding these arrangements during their period of activity. c. Under the direction and supervision of each school principal, the plaintiffs reported for duty around 08:00 and finished around 16:00, performing activities such as student guidance, traffic safety instruction, and school patrols. Despite being designated as "Learning Zone Guardian Volunteers," the plaintiffs were effectively providing labor in a dependent relationship with the aim of receiving remuneration. Therefore, the defendant, as the user, asserted that it had an obligation to pay the plaintiffs the difference between the minimum wage and the actual wages paid, annual paid leave allowances, overtime and holiday work allowances, unpaid severance pay, and compensation for delayed payment. Judgment a. "Volunteer activity" refers to acts of individuals or organizations voluntarily providing time and effort without compensation for the benefit of local communities, the nation, or humanity as a whole (Basic Act on Volunteer Activities, Article 3, Paragraph 1). It is guided by principles of gratuitousness, voluntariness, and public interest (same law, Article 2, Paragraph 2). Therefore, even if small gratuities are provided as expressions of gratitude from beneficiaries or as part of measures to protect volunteers from economic losses during volunteer activities (same law, Enforcement Decree, Article 10, Paragraph 2, Item 2) or as part of initiatives to promote volunteer activities, such payments are not considered remuneration for the activities (labor) provided. b. In cases like this, whether the provision of certain activities (labor) is in a quid pro quo relationship with the receipt of remuneration depends entirely on the intentions of the parties involved. It must be examined whether the activity provider (labor provider) participated primarily for the internal sense of accomplishment or satisfaction derived from achieving the public good through the activity, or whether the primary purpose of participation was to receive remuneration for the activity. The interpretation of intentions should consider factors such as the expectations of the beneficiary regarding the intentions of the activity provider, the reason for the payment of a fixed amount, whether the participants perceived it as natural compensation for the activity (labor), whether the amount of payment corresponds to the market value of the activity (labor), the degree of control exerted by the beneficiary over the participants during the activity, the extent to which participants are free to withdraw from the activity, whether legal obligations are imposed, and the consequences of violating such obligations. Therefore, in cases where the expressed intentions are unclear, their intentions must be inferred by considering various objective factors, including whether the amount of payment is an appropriate sum corresponding to the market value of the activity (labor), whether the achieved outcomes are related to the public good, the extent of control exerted by the beneficiary during the activity, the degree of freedom of withdrawal from the activity, and whether legal obligations are imposed and, if so, the consequences of violating them. c. In the case where the plaintiffs, who were commissioned as "Learning Zone Guardians" for each school operated by the defendant (○○ Metropolitan City), demanded payment for the difference between the minimum wage and the actual wages paid, annual paid leave allowances, overtime and holiday work allowances, and unpaid severance pay on the assumption that they were employees of the defendant, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that the "Learning Zone Guardians" did not provide labor in a dependent relationship for the purpose of receiving remuneration but participated as volunteers as part of volunteer activities. |
|||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents