Section 1: Parties and Need for Remedy
Chapter 2: Employer
1. Determination of the Existence of Employer Status under the Labor Standards Act
1.5 Determination of the Existence of Employer Status Between Truck owner/Operator as Consignee and Company Concerned as Consignor
| Supreme Court Decision on January 23, 1998, Case 97da44676 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellee: Kim ○○ and 6 others
* Defendant, Appellant: A Corporation 1. Facts: a. On April 4, 1994, the owner operator, referred to as Excluded Party 1, entered into a vehicle consignment agreement with the defendant company for a 15ton dump truck he owned, bearing the registration Seoul 06na8888. On April 21, he transferred the registration of the truck to the defendant company. b. On April 30, Excluded Party 1 agreed to lease the truck to Excluded Dongwon Construction Co., Ltd. for two months. Starting May 1, he commenced transport operations at the construction site of Daemyung Ski Resort, which was being developed by the aforementioned company. c. On June 2, while engaged in dirt transport at the construction site with Excluded Party 1, the deceased, Kim ○○, who was employed as a truck driver, attempted to repair the truck when it broke down. While replacing parts under the lifted dump of the truck, the dump unexpectedly fell, crushing him and causing death by cervical fracture and asphyxiation. d. Under normal maintenance conditions, the truck's dump could not descend unless the dump lever located next to the driver's seat was operated. At the time of the accident, the deceased was more than 3 meters away from the dump lever, making it impossible for him to have touched it during the repair. e. At the time of the accident, Excluded Party 1, who was present at the site, failed to prevent the inexperienced deceased from conducting the repair work. The defendant company had neglected to provide safety training to owner operators and drivers, such as instructing them to have repairs done by qualified mechanics or service centers when their equipment malfunctioned. f. At the time of the accident, the registration of the truck was in the name of the defendant company, and it operated under the conventional subcontracting system without registering Excluded Party 1 as an independent or joint operator of a construction machinery rental business with the administrative authorities. 2. Court Judgment: a. At the time of the accident, the new Enforcement Decree of the Construction Machinery Management Act was already in effect. Therefore, the actual owner of the truck, Mr. A, had the option to change the registration to reflect the true ownership and operate the truck either as an individual construction machinery rental business or as a joint construction machinery rental business with two or more individuals or legal entities. However, Mr. A maintained the registration under the name of the defendant company, continuing the traditional system where the truck was nominally owned by the company. Given this setup, even though Mr. A was the practical owner and operator of the truck, the defendant company is considered to have presented the truck as part of its business operations to third parties. Objectively, the company is also seen as having the status of an employer who directs and supervises Mr. A, the actual truck owner. b. Additionally, the defendant company, as the employer, holds direct contractual responsibility towards the truck driver, Mr. B. The company must ensure that Mr. B does not suffer any harm to his life, body, or health while providing his labor. This includes the duty to maintain a safe working environment and take necessary measures as required under Article 23 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act to ensure safety. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 97다44676.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents