2. Validity of an act violating Article 15 (2) of the former Immigration Control Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4522, Dec. 8, 1992) prohibiting the employment of a foreigner having no status of sojourn.

2. Article 15(2) of the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 4522 of Dec. 8, 1992) prohibiting the employment of foreigners without status of sojourn (amended by Act No. 4522 of Dec. 8, 1992) merely applies to acts committed in violation of the regulations prohibiting the State from regulating illegal stay of foreigners, and it does not affect the legal effect of the acts itself.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On October 26, 1992, the plaintiff filed a medical care application with the defendant on October 26 of the same year, alleging that at around 00, at around 00, the plaintiff was injured by the 2 through 5 omanal dysal dystyal dystyption in the work site of sexual criminal origin in the art company of the above industry company, while the plaintiff was engaged in the work of the art company of the Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 16-16-16, a foreign worker who does not have employment status, the plaintiff was not subject to compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act. However, on October 31 of the same year, the defendant filed a medical care application with the defendant on October 26, 199 for the reason that there was no dispute between the parties with respect to the non-approval disposition on October 31 of the same year on the ground that the plaintiff's illegal employment was not subject to compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter in this case).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the non-approval disposition of this case, which was reported differently under the Industrial Accident Compensation Act, is unlawful, except that the plaintiff is a foreigner under illegal stay, and that the foreigner is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and that the non-approval disposition of this case is unlawful, even from a humanitarian perspective. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the non-approval disposition of this case is legitimate, since the employment contract entered into with the plaintiff as the foreigner who illegally employed a domestic place of business without the status of employment is in violation of Article 15 (2) of the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 4522 of Dec. 8, 192; hereinafter the same shall apply) is an illegal employment contract in violation of Article 15 (2) of the former Immigration Control Act.

(b) Markets:

(1) Therefore, in full view of the provisions of Articles 9(2), 9(1)1, and 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 78 of the Labor Standards Act, medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be paid at the request of a person who is entitled to receive insurance benefits (hereinafter referred to as “beneficiary”) where an employee suffers from an occupational injury or disease while providing labor at a business or workplace subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. According to Article 3(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the term “worker” in the same Act means “worker” under the Labor Standards Act. Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “worker” means a person who provides labor for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace regardless of type of occupation, regardless of which the employee is entitled to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, if the employee suffers from an occupational injury or disease while providing labor at a business or workplace subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, medical care benefits shall be paid to a foreign worker subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and thus, the employer shall be held liable for industrial accident compensation benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

However, Article 15 (1) of the former Immigration Control Act provides that "any foreigner may stay in the Republic of Korea within the permitted sojourn status and sojourn period," and Article 15 (2) provides that "no foreigner shall be employed under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree," and Article 45 (6) and Article 82 (5) of the same Act provides that any foreigner who violates the provisions of Article 15 (1) of the same Act shall be forced to leave the Republic of Korea and shall be subject to criminal punishment at the same time. According to Article 84 (1) of the same Act, any national business operator who violates the provisions of Article 15 (2) of the same Act shall be subject to criminal punishment. However, the Act provides for matters concerning the immigration control of all persons entering or leaving the Republic of Korea, who enter the Republic of Korea, and the registration, etc. of foreigners who stay in the Republic of Korea, and each of the provisions of Articles 15 (1) and (2) of the same Act provides that all of the above regulations shall not apply to any unlawful acts by the State, in violation of the law and regulations.

Therefore, in full view of the interpretation of the above relevant laws, even if a foreigner who does not have a status of employment sojourn and an employer of a domestic place of business concluded an employment contract in violation of each provision of Article 15(1) and (2) of the former Immigration Control Act, such foreigner is subject to compulsory retirement under Article 45 subparag. 6 and Article 82 subparag. 5 of the same Act, and is subject to criminal punishment at the same time, and the employer is subject to criminal punishment under Article 84 subparag. 1 of the same Act, and the employment contract is valid, so the foreigner is deemed as a worker under the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, if the foreigner suffers from an occupational injury or disease while providing labor to the business or workplace subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the foreigner is entitled to medical care benefits under

(2) In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Republic of Korea on March 28, 1992 without having employment status as a foreigner with the Republic of Korea nationality, and from that point of time after entering into an employment contract with the above agency on March 28, 192, and from that point of time, from that point of time, he was engaged in a plastic attack from the above agency of the company's work from the above agency of the company from that point of time on October 2: 02 of the same year: around 00, when he puts a plastic material into the work office of the above agency of sexual criminal affairs, and suffered an injury such as the destruction of the unit of 2 to 5 stories, etc., and on the other hand, the above company of the company of the Aart Industry is a business place subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

(3) In light of the interpretation of the above-mentioned legal provisions, even if an employment contract was concluded between the plaintiff who did not have employment status as a foreigner and the plaintiff, the business owner of the domestic place of business, thereby violating the provisions of Article 15 (1) and (2) of the former Immigration Control Act, such employment contract is valid, and thus, the plaintiff can be deemed as a worker under the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, as long as the plaintiff provided labor to the above industrial company, which is subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and sustained occupational injury, the non-approval disposition of this case that the defendant reported differently is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of non-approval of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)