부당대기발령구제 재심판정 취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Attachment] The 7th 7th to 9th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.
1) Whether an intervenor is a worker or not shall be appointed through a resolution of appointment at a general meeting of shareholders under the relevant legal principles and the auditor shall be appointed through a resolution of appointment at a general meeting of shareholders, and the legal authority of directors and auditors shall be limited to legally appointed directors and auditors as above and shall not be exercised without undergoing such appointment procedures. However, a person who is merely granted a position of director from a company for the formal and clear purpose may not exercise the authority
In addition, whether a worker is a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act shall be determined by whether the worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages regardless of the form of contract. Thus, even if an officer such as director or auditor of a company is an officer, his/her status or name is a formal and scenic purpose, and in fact, he/she is in a relationship of remuneration by offering a certain labor under the direction and supervision of a representative director or
If a representative director, etc. is responsible for certain labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director, etc. and has received certain remuneration in return, such officer is a worker under the Labor Standards Act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64681 Decided September 26, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2017Du46899 Decided September 7, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 2005Du524 Decided May 27, 2005, etc.). The facts acknowledged prior to the judgment, as well as Gap’s evidence 1, 2, 15 through 19, 25, 30, 36.