근로기준법위반
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ① E is an employee under the Labor Standards Act; ② there is no explicit provision prohibiting personal training in a labor contract between E and D (hereinafter “D”). Although the same person provided the same labor to occupants in the same apartment complex at the same place, it is unreasonable to determine the nature of workers differently depending on whether it is an individual training or group training; ② Operational Rules of the Museum Center, which serves as the basis for the payment of individual training fees, are formally decided by the council of occupants’ representatives; ③ the actual contents were determined by D; ③ the place of work is designated as the G Center located in Seocho-gu Seoul. According to the employment contract between D and E, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants explicitly set the place of work as the supervisor and supervisor of the individual training; ④ According to the specifications of retirement allowance settlement of E and the receipt of retirement income, the individual training fees paid to the Defendants constitute an unlawful act of misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendants’ wages, and thus, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., (i) the duties of the private teaching course are not clearly included in the employment contract and the scope of work under the employment contract, and even if the remuneration is paid to E in relation to the duties of the private teaching course, it shall be separately determined in the case of the private teaching course.