beta
(영문) 대법원 2015.04.23 2013다215225

퇴직금

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The term “worker” under Article 2 (1) of the Labor Standards Act means a person who provides work in a business or workplace for the purpose of wages regardless of the type of employment, and regardless of the type of contract, whether it is applicable shall be determined by whether an employer has provided work in a subordinate

On the other hand, directors of a stock company shall be appointed at a shareholders' meeting and registered.

The directors appointed in accordance with these procedures can exercise the powers prescribed by the Commercial Act, such as participating in the decision-making process for the management of the company as a member of the board of directors, and manage certain affairs delegated by the company.

Therefore, if a director actually performs his duties as a director under the Commercial Act and is in charge of the business affairs for the management of the company, if the substance of the entire business affairs in charge is not that of providing certain labor under the direction and supervision of the employer, the director can be deemed to handle the affairs delegated by the company.

In addition, in principle, remuneration received by a director of a corporation in accordance with the articles of incorporation or the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders shall be deemed to be based on the provisions of Article 388 of the Commercial Act. In addition, even when a retirement allowance is paid in accordance with the company's regulations, the retirement allowance is, in principle, a kind of remuneration paid in return for delegation of duties during his/her service. Thus, the payment of remuneration and retirement allowance does not necessarily lead

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da28813 Decided September 26, 2013). 2. The record reveals the following facts.