(b) Whether a labor contract under the Labor Standards Act exists with a specific company where workers belonging to a port transportation union entered into a loading and unloading contract which is identical or similar to several companies and received only working expenses due to the provision of labor;

B. Workers belonging to the Jeonbuk Port Trade Union, the whole-scale branch of the company, without being subordinate to a specific company in the loading and unloading labor of a railroad or harbor, have entered into a loading and unloading contract with the same or similar company, and have continued to supply the same labor for the same purpose as other companies, and there is no evidence to deem that the above employees entered into a subordinate employment contract with the above company, or provided the above employees with the labor conditions such as wages or working hours, or provided the above company with a separate and specific command and supervision right, it cannot be deemed that the loading and unloading contract between the above employees belonging to the above division and the above company is an employment contract under the Labor Standards Act.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

For that reason, the judgment of the court below refers to all money and valuables which an employer pays to an employee as remuneration, salary, or any other pretext for work (Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act). The plaintiff's work expenses referred to in this case cannot be viewed as an employee as the whole-out subdivision of the Jeonbuk Port Trade Union. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that an employer has preferential right to pay wages pursuant to Article 30-2 of the Labor Standards Act on the premise that it is a wage.

According to Article 17 of the Labor Standards Act, the term "labor contract" means a contract which is entered into with the employer for the purpose of providing labor to the employer and paying the wages to the employer. Thus, unlike wage contracts under the Civil Act, the labor relationship between the employee and the employer should be maintained in accordance with the employer's command and order. Thus, considering the whole purport of pleading in the statement No. 2 (U.S.) No. 6 (collective agreement), No. 10-1, No. 10-1, No. 2, and No. 3 (Rules, Regulations, etc.), workers belonging to the above Kim Jong branch has received only working expenses for providing labor without being subordinate to the above company, and even with the other company, they have entered into a unloading contract which is similar to or similar to the above company and continued to provide the same labor to the above company according to its needs, and there is no specific evidence to deem that the labor contract was concluded between the above company and the above company or even if subordinate labor contract was entered into, the above company's right to direction and supervise the above company's labor contract.

After all, the court below's decision that the above Kim branch cannot be the main agent of the work cost does not include that the above work cost is not a wage under the labor contract under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore, the work cost of this case does not constitute a wage under the labor contract, and therefore there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the measures taken by the court below that the above work cost of this case is not a wage with priority

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)