[부당해고구제재심판정취소][공1992.1.1.(911),135]
The case holding that a person who received basic salary and activity subsidy from the Council of ○○○○, an incorporated association, and served in accordance with the working hours of public officials, etc., constitutes an employee who is not an honorary post, but who
The case holding that, every month, 400,000 won shall be paid as basic salary from the Central Council of ○○○○ Council, 300,000 won shall be paid as activity support expenses by its affiliated Seoul Special Metropolitan Council, and shall be in accordance with the working hours of public officials, and the person who has joined the Workers’ Property Formation Savings and National Pension under the order of the chairman of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council, while performing his duties under the order of the chairman of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council, shall be a worker who is paid wages as compensation for
Articles 14 and 18 of the Labor Standards Act
○○○○ Council, an incorporated association, Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorney Choi Gyeong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
Intervenor joining the Defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu5124 delivered on May 20, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the intervenor's ex officio dismissal disposition against the intervenor joining the defendant (hereinafter the intervenor) on September 27, 1989 does not constitute a worker under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, and therefore it is unfair that the intervenor judged the intervenor's ex officio dismissal to be unfair. The court below determined that the intervenor's allegation was groundless on the ground that the intervenor's ex officio dismissal constitutes a worker who is not an honorary post, but a worker who is paid wages as basic salary from the plaintiff Central Council every month, and 300,000,000 won as an activity assistant title from the Seoul Special Metropolitan Council under the plaintiff's control of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council, served as a public official's work hours. The intervenor conducted his duties under the order of the chairperson of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council, and received the above money from the plaintiff and joined the worker's property formation savings and the national pension. According to the above facts of recognition, the intervenor's assertion was groundless.
In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified and the above-mentioned amount is subject to work, and since the intervenor provided labor to the plaintiff in the subordinate relationship with the employer, the above decision of the court below is also justifiable. Therefore, there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehension of the legal principles as to wages or workers.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)