[근로기준법위반][공1992.6.15.(922),1777]
Whether the company that owns another person's vehicle under the name of the company and operates the cargo transport business is an employer who is responsible for the labor contract in relation to the employee (affirmative)
As long as a company owns a motor vehicle in its name and operates a cargo transport business, the company has registered its business separately from the company, and the company has independently conducted its business activities on its own account after paying only monthly admission fees, it is merely an internal matter under the agreement between the company and the borrower, and in external relationship, it cannot be deemed that the company owns the said motor vehicle and operates it. Therefore, even in relation to the employees of the workplace, it shall be deemed that the company is an employer who is directly responsible for the labor relationship.
Articles 30 and 109 of the Labor Standards Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Attorney Kim Jae-won
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 89No993 delivered on July 4, 1990
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant was not the employer who was obligated to pay the money as provided in Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act, on the ground that the non-indicted 1 corporation whose representative director is the defendant's company's business registration when the defendant entered the above-owned truck's own truck with the transportation company into the above entrusted management and operation contract for the truck (the above-owned truck) with the transportation company, and that the non-indicted 1 corporation whose representative director is the defendant's own truck was registered separately from the above company, and the above company did not have a parent-subsidiary relationship between the above company and the above company. The court below determined that the non-indicted 1 corporation was employed as the driver of the above vehicle while carrying out its own business independently by using the above vehicle, and that the defendant did not have a parent-subsidiary relationship between the above company and the above limited liability company.
However, as long as the above company owns a motor vehicle in its name and operates a cargo transport business, such reason is merely an internal matter by agreement between the company and the borrower, and in external relations, it cannot be deemed that the company owns the above motor vehicle and operates it. Therefore, in relation to the employees of the workplace, it shall be deemed that the company is an employer who is directly responsible for the labor relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do2475, Feb. 24, 1987; 90Do1214, Sept. 25, 190).
Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on employers as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, this issue is justified.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)