The Assembly of Yeongdeungpo-gu

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Representative Lee Jae-chul

Litigation Performers Kim Jong-won, New Delay

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On February 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was engaged in the electric utility as a driver of a rolling stock company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company"). On February 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the following: (a) while driving a rolling stock at his/her own home and working as a logistics warehouse at his/her own home, he/she was driving directly in accordance with the four-lanes of the speed of the upstream of the Highway at his/her own home; (b) the Plaintiff was killed in the back of the preceding vehicle; and (c) the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the vehicle at his/her right side while the direction of the vehicle at the right side is turned into the soundproof wall (hereinafter referred to as "accident at issue"). (d) The Plaintiff was diagnosed by the next manager at the right side (o.e., the left side), and (e) the latter manager at the right side of the vehicle at his/her own expense.

B. On July 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, but on July 17, 2013, the Plaintiff rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) on the ground that, in order to be subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as a student who drives a truck owned by the Plaintiff, he/she did not apply the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to the Corporation pursuant to Article 124(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 122(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, he/she did not apply the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act because he/she did not apply for the special case to the Corporation.

【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the Plaintiff has provided labor under the specific direction and supervision of a land owner or an employer, the Plaintiff is not a person in special type of employment as stipulated in Article 125 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which protects a person who is a neighboring senior under Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act, namely, a person who provides labor to a business or workplace for wage purposes, and thus is subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

(2) The Plaintiff, as a land owner, was involved in the instant accident while working at his own home as a logistics warehouse of the non-party company, while working for the non-party company at his own home, and this is an accident that occurred during his work under the control and management of the business owner, and thus constitutes an occupational accident.

(b) Relevant statutes;

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the statutes.

(c) Facts of recognition;

(1) Since 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a transport contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the non-party company on March 1, 201 during each year after entering into a transport contract with the non-party company for the purpose of transport business, etc. on December 9, 2009. In addition, the Plaintiff completed the business registration for the purpose of transport business, etc. on December 9, 2009.

The contract of carriage of goods

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Attached agreements shall be attached thereto.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff was demanded to work as a logistics warehouse of the non-party company by not later than 07:25 each day pursuant to the contract of this case, and reported in advance, and the non-party company made an inquiry every day, and gave reward to the non-party company for erroneous delivery and outstanding employees.

(3) The Plaintiff transported goods of a clean country in accordance with the direction of the non-party company. The Plaintiff transported the goods to the routes and frequency instructed by the non-party company, and reported the road situation and the delivery hours to the non-party company. The Plaintiff prepared a daily operation log (such as distance, travel hours, load and tear hours, tolls, oil expenses, parking expenses, delivery charges, and the reasons for return, etc.) and obtained approval from the director of the non-party company logistics center.

(4) The Plaintiff received additional allowances, etc. even if he/she received the fixed wage of KRW 2.5 million per month from the non-party company and received a large amount of cargo during holidays. In the event of absence from office, the Plaintiff deducted KRW 83,00 per day from the fixed wage, and received oil expenses, road traffic expenses, parking expenses, etc. necessary for the operation of the vehicle from the non-party company. The Plaintiff received from the non-party company 3, 933, 124 through 4, 242, and 680 won from the non-party company from November 201 to January 2012. The Plaintiff received from the non-party company 3, 933, 124 through 4, 242, and 680 won from the non-party company.

(5) The Plaintiff could not operate a vehicle for any purpose other than the transportation of goods ordered by the non-party company, and transported only the goods allocated by the non-party company.

(6) The land owners of the non-party company, including the plaintiff, worked at the above logistics center by using the land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-to-land-on-land-on-land-on-land-

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, witness kn's kn's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's

D. Determination.

(1) Determination as to whether a person constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act

The determination of whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act shall be based on whether the form of a contract is an employment contract or a contract for work, and whether a worker has a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages. The determination of whether a dependent relationship is above shall be made by the employer and shall be subject to the rules of employment or service (personnel) and the employer shall exercise reasonable command and supervision in the course of performing the work, and whether the employer is bound by the employer, whether the worker is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account, such as possessing equipment, raw materials, work tools, etc., or employing a third party, and whether the worker has a superior risk, such as the creation of profits and losses through the provision of labor, and the nature of remuneration, whether the basic wage or fixed wage was determined, and whether the employer has an exclusive relationship with the employer, and whether the employer has an exclusive relationship with the provision of labor, and whether the employer is recognized as an employee under the social and social security system shall be determined at least 90, 209.

With respect to this case, the following circumstances are revealed to the public health team, namely, the facts recognized as above and the purport of the entire pleadings. ① The plaintiff takes charge of supplying the day excluding holidays as the working day, and was paid monthly fixed wage (on a holiday work allowance), compensation for actual expenses, road traffic expenses, parking fees, etc. ② The wages the plaintiff et al. received as fixed wage not only did not vary depending on the volume of the goods transported, the number of delivery, and the delivery distance, but also did not require a certain degree of basic performance. Since the plaintiff et al. did not bear any risk, such as raising profits and losses from the increase and decrease in the transportation of the goods, the plaintiff et al., and the non-party et al. did not provide the non-party et al. with the non-party company for the purpose of collecting wages under the direction of the non-party company. ③ The plaintiff et al. did not provide the non-party company with the duty to collect wages for a certain period of time after being employed by the non-party company.

(2) Whether it is a disaster from work under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

The term "occupational accidents" in Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act means accidents that occur during the ordinary course of performing and managing the relevant work under the control of the employer by 0 or under the management of the employer. Generally, even if the selection of the worker is reserved in close and indivisible relationship with the work of providing labor, such accidents cannot be deemed as occupational accidents because of the worker's choice of the method of departure and retirement and retirement and the selection of the route is ordinary. However, if it is difficult to view that the process of removal and retirement is under the control and management of the worker's work, it is not closely related to the worker's work, such as the method of removal and retirement and retirement, or that there is no special relation to the worker's relocation and retirement from work, such as the method of removal and retirement and retirement from work (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Du1274, Sept. 28, 2007).

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts recognized earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s home was designated as the warehouse of the non-party company, and the Plaintiff’s home was the Dongsan-dong in Yeongdeungpo-gu in Seoul, and the above logistics warehouse was in fact impossible to use public transportation due to the estimation of the total amount of time, ② the Plaintiff’s branch owners, etc., including the Plaintiff, shall carry goods in the above logistics warehouse, transport goods to the delivery designated by the non-party company, and immediately leave the warehouse without going through the logistics warehouse, ③ the Plaintiff’s main means of transportation business conducted by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s commuting to and from work is in an indivisible and indivisible relationship with the business, the instant accident constitutes occupational accidents since it occurred during the work controlled and managed by the non-party company.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant accident occurred during work constitutes occupational accident, and the Plaintiff is subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act because it falls under the workers under Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, even though it is deemed that the Plaintiff is a person in special type of employment under Article 125 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which is premised on a person who is not subject to the Labor Standards Act, the instant disposition taken on a different premise should be revoked illegally.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

BUUD ACT

Article 5 (Definition)

The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

1. The term "occupational accident" means an injury, disease, disability or death of a worker caused by an occupational reason;

2. "Workers' wages" and "average wages" and "ordinary wages" referred to in the Labor Standards Act and "workers" defined in the Labor Standards Act;

The term "ordinary wage" refers to "ordinary wage": Provided, That [5]

Article 125 (Special Cases concerning Persons in Special Types of Employment)

(1) The Labor Standards Act, etc. shall apply even though workers provide labor similar to those workers regardless of the form of contract.

A person who is in need of protection from an occupational accident due to his/her failure to meet all of the following requirements:

An employee prescribed by Presidential Decree among the employees in special types of employment (hereafter referred to as "employee in special types of employment" in this Article)

(d) A project to which labor (work) is provided is subject to this Act, notwithstanding Article 6;

shall be deemed to be a case.

1. Labor required for the operation thereof shall be provided mainly to one business on a regular basis, and shall be received remuneration therefor;

Of others

2. They shall not use other persons to provide such labor services.

(2) Notwithstanding subparagraph 2 of Article 5, a person in special type of employment shall apply this Act to the employee of the business.

Any person in special type of employment shall be deemed a person in special type of employment: Provided, That if a person in special type of employment applies for exclusion from the application of this Act

shall not be regarded as a worker.

(3) If an employer is provided or ceases to receive labor services from a person in a special type of employment, the employer shall do so.

The agency shall report to the agency as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(4) If a person in special types of employment does not want this Act, he/she shall be prescribed by the Insurance Premium Collection Act.

pursuant to this Act, the Corporation may apply for exclusion from the application of this Act: Provided, That the business owner shall bear the total amount of the insurance premium.

In the case of a person in special type of employment, the same shall not apply.

(5) Where a request for exclusion from the application of this Act is made pursuant to paragraph (4), this Act shall apply from the date following the date of the request.

except that this Act shall not apply within 70 days from the date of the first application of this Act;

(6) If a person who is not subject to this Act under paragraphs (4) and (5) is again subject to this Act, he/she shall be subject to this Act.

If an application is filed with the Corporation, this Act shall apply from the following insurance year.

(7) Establishment, termination, and termination of an insurance relationship for a person in a special type of employment governed by this Act under paragraph (1).

Change, Exclusion from the Application of the Act and Application for Re-Application, Calculation, Reporting, Payment of Insurance Premiums, Insurance Premiums or other Dues

Matters necessary for the collection shall be governed by the Insurance Premium Collection Act.

(8) Average wages which serve as the basis for calculation of insurance benefits for persons in special types of employment shall be high.

shall be the amount of time.

(9) Criteria for recognition of occupational accidents which are grounds for the payment of insurance benefits for persons in special types of employment shall be prescribed by

shall be determined by the Regulations.

(1) Where any occupational accident referred to in paragraph (9) occurs during the period in which insurance premiums are overdue, a load determined by Presidential Decree.

insurance benefits for an occupational accident may not be paid in whole or in part as a result of such occupational accident.

(2).

(1) Matters necessary for the payment of insurance benefits for persons in special types of employment shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment

(c)

▣ 근로기준법

Article 2 (Definitions)

(1) The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

1. The term "worker" means providing labor to a business or workplace for the purpose of wages, irrespective of the types of his/her occupation;

person.

[.]

Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Article 125 (Scope, etc. of Persons in Special Types of Employment)

"Persons engaged in occupational categories prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 125 (1) of the Act means any of the following persons:

[.]

5. Door-to-door distribution business (the collection and transportation of parcels) under the subdivision of the Korean Standard Classification of Occupations, which is the cause of door-to-door distribution;

A person who performs the collection or delivery service in a delivery business throughout the course of business (referring to a business of delivery);

6. The standards determined by the Minister of Employment and Labor as the cause of door-to-door distribution under the subdivision of the Korean Standard Classification of Occupations;

the end of the person who mainly engages in delivery affairs at the request of one Kwikset Service provider.