beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단125210

임금 등

Text

1. The defendant,

A. Plaintiff A’s KRW 9,401,533 as well as 5% per annum from January 15, 2013 to February 10, 2015.

Reasons

1. Whether he/she is a worker;

A. Determination of whether a worker is a worker under the relevant legal doctrine shall be made on the actual aspect of the contract, regardless of whether the contract form is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for employment, depending on whether the worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages. Determination of whether such a subordinate relationship exists shall be made by comprehensively taking into account whether the content of the work is determined by the employer, whether the employer is subject to specific individual command and supervision by the employer, whether the working hours and the place of work are designated by the employer and are detained by the employer, whether the worker is replaced by the work, whether the worker has the characteristic of the work, whether the characteristic of remuneration is the object of the work itself, whether the basic wage or fixed wage is determined, whether the wage is determined, whether the continuousness and degree of the provision of labor, whether the status of the worker is exclusive to the employer, whether the social and economic conditions of the two parties, etc. are recognized by other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Acts and subordinate statutes regarding social security system, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da50034 Decided November 10, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da27336 Decided July 12, 2013, etc.)

B. In light of the facts without dispute in the instant case, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 7, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Office of Education and the Daegu Metropolitan Office Office of Education has promoted a “operator” system to utilize retired public officials, etc. for the purpose of preventing school violence around 2010, and Plaintiff A’s operation at Defendant D secondary schools from September 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012.