[2] In a case where the head of post office affiliated with Korea Post, and the head of post office affiliated with Korea Post, and Party A, etc., who worked as a member of the home office, sought confirmation of workers' status against the State, the case affirming the judgment below which held that Party A, etc. are workers who provide labor under the direction and supervision of Korea Post

[2] In a case where the head of post office affiliated with Korea Post, and the head of post office affiliated with Korea Post, sought confirmation of the status of workers, etc. against the State, the case affirming the judgment below that: (a) the State, in accordance with the entrustment contract, determined the content and scope of the services of the sub-trustee office; (b) method of handling mail; (c) type and quantity of mail to be handled each day; (d) specific methods of performing the services beyond the extent of notifying information on postal delivery services through various official documents; (e) entry of uniforms prescribed to the sub-trustee office for uniform performance; (b) provision of education to the members of the sub-trustee office; (c) continuous or non-regular performance of education; (d) continuous or non-regular performance of the services or results of the affairs of the sub-trustee office; (e) continuous management and supervision of the members of the sub-trustee office; and (e) provision of services to the members of the sub-trustee office, in light of the importance of postal delivery services and responsibility for delivery; and (e) provision of services to the members of the same services without compensation services.

1. Whether an employee is a worker under the Labor Standards Act ought to be determined depending on whether the form of a contract is an employment contract or a contract for work, and whether an employee provided work in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace. Here, whether an employee is a subordinate relationship ought to be determined by determining the content of work, and whether the employer is subject to the rules of employment or employment regulations, etc., and whether the employer is subject to considerable direction and supervision in the course of performing work, whether the employee is allowed to designate working hours and place of work, whether the employee is subject to detention, whether the employer is capable of carrying on his/her own business on his/her own account, such as possessing equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc., or having a third party employ and act on behalf of him/her, and whether the employee has a risk, such as the creation of profit and loss through the provision of labor, and whether the nature of remuneration has been determined by the basic wage or fixed wage, and whether the employee is exclusive and degree of employment relationship with the employer, and whether the social security system is recognized as an employee.

2. A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted.

1) In order to provide postal services, such as postal services and door-to-door services, the Defendant established a post office with a local administration office under the control of Korea Post, and introduced a system of commission of part of the members of the members of the members of the members of the members of the members of the members of the association who are national public officials entrusted to the private sector, and recruited regular members of the members of the members of the members of the members of the member association, who are entrusted with the affairs of the members of the members of the member association. The Plaintiffs entered into a contract for

2) The Plaintiffs received postal items to be delivered from the relevant personnel on a daily basis and at the time and place specified in the instant consignment contract (national public officials on a duty or on a regular commission basis) and carried out delivery services in the area in charge stipulated in the instant consignment contract, and returned the postal items that have not been delivered to the relevant personnel.

3) Although the time of departure and retirement of a door-to-door store operator was different in accordance with the quantity of delivery, the defendant prepared a mail delivery book of a door-to-door store operator for a certain period to enter or obtain approval of each date's postal item amount, time of delivery, time of return, etc., and managed work, absence, leave, etc. through "the work status book of a door-to-door store operator", and provided a portable device (PDA) so that the delivery result of registered mail can be entered in real time.

4) It was impossible to arbitrarily revise the house distribution units in charge as stipulated in the instant consignment contract, and annually received the delivery volume from the Defendant, while carrying out the work, he was in possession of house distribution clothes, house distribution caps, and houseing with the Postal Services affiliated with the Postal Services, used house distribution units, PEA and other office distribution equipment, and issued by the Defendant.

5) The Defendant, who arranged the process, precautions, civil petition cases, etc. of the postal service manual, had all the office clerks observe the said manual. The Defendant, as text messages, sent an order to the door-to-door dispatch dispatched by the National Tax Service, such as “to complete delivery of the postal items on the regular basis,” “to return the registered mail sent by the National Tax Service,” “to return the registered mail as a result of delivery,” and “to process the registration as a result of delivery,” and publicly notified “delivery method following the revision to the guidelines.” The Defendant published the “civil petition measures following the failure to return” and “Comparison before and after the improvement of the delivery method.”

6) The Defendant provided education to the Housemen, such as job training and conference meetings, and education on the special election of the National Assembly members of the Republic of Korea, and instructed them to participate in the education. The Defendant provided detailed education methods, procedures, and cautions for delivery of postal items.

7) The Defendant conducted on-site inspections and evaluation of the delivery and management of postal items on-site consignment stores, and specifically announced matters to confirm, correct, and improve matters concerning the delivery and management of postal items.

8) On the last day of each month by multiplying a certain amount per hour by the working hours set forth in the instant consignment contract and the actual working days, and received overtime and holiday allowances. From February 2014, the Defendant received the commission fee calculated on the basis of the number of households and the delivery fee of registered mail, etc. from April 2013. The Defendant imposed the business income tax on the home delivery worker from April 2013.

B. On the premise of the foregoing facts, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs were workers providing labor under the direction and supervision of the Korea Post’s subordinate relationship, based on the following circumstances:

1) In accordance with the instant consignment contract, the Defendant determined the content and scope of the work of the home-house dispatchr, the method of processing, and the types and quantities of postal items to be handled each day.

2) The Defendant instructed a specific method of processing, etc. through a mail service manual, various official announcements, and mobile phone messages, which exceeded the extent of informing information on postal delivery services.

3) For the uniform performance of duties, the Defendant entered the prescribed uniforms into home-to-house operators and had them delivered in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the relevant statutes, etc., and provided education on a regular or irregular basis.

4) The Defendant continued to manage and supervise the process or results of performing the duties of a home care house leader through on-site inspections, etc.

5) The Defendant had the Plaintiffs deal with postal delivery services at a fixed place, prepared a work status register, a delivery book, etc. for a certain period, managed the position of the home delivery unit operator, and confirmed the status of the affairs of the home delivery unit operator through the delivery information entered in the PDA.

6) Considering the importance of postal delivery services, responsibility incidental to the performance of services, the Defendant’s free lending of service uniforms and supplies to door-to-door operators, etc., it is difficult in fact to enable a third party to substitute delivery services or concurrently operate another business.

7) The instant consignment contract contains various precautions related to the delivery of mail, grounds for termination of the contract, etc. in detail.

8) Fees that the Plaintiffs received in proportion to working hours constitute remuneration for the amount and quality of labor provided for the Defendant. The Plaintiffs’ nature of workers should not be readily denied solely on the ground that the Plaintiffs paid business income tax from a certain point of time.

9) The Plaintiffs’ postal delivery services are strictly regulated as to the main duties of which the Defendant had organized the organization and offered to all citizens, qualifications for handling and business handling methods, and civil and criminal sanctions in violation of relevant statutes. The Plaintiffs, who are the Defendant’s other employees performing postal delivery services, dealt with the same duties in essence as the full-time consignment store, special area consignment office, and special area consignment.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding workers under the Labor Standards Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Seon-soo (Presiding Justice)