[근로기준법위반][공1987.4.15.(798),592]
Where a motor vehicle belonging to another person is owned under the name of the company and is operated by the motor vehicle transport business, the subject of responsibility under the labor contract.
As long as a vehicle is owned in the name of the automobile management company of the defendant and is engaged in the automobile transport business, the agreement between the above company and the borrower is merely an internal practice, and in an external relationship, the above company's possession of the vehicle and the operation of the vehicle cannot be deemed as an operator, and therefore, in relation to the employees of the business place, the company (or its representative director) is directly responsible
Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act
Defendant
Defendant
Daejeon District Court Decision 86No26 delivered on October 23, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that as long as a vehicle is owned in the name of the non-indicted stock company and is operated in the automobile transport business, even if the actual condition in the automobile transport business is contrary to the assertion of the defendant in this case, it is merely an internal practice that agreed with the above company and the borrower in the management of the defendant, and in an external relationship with the above company, the above company's possession of the vehicle and operation of the vehicle cannot be deemed as a management entity. Therefore, even in the relation with the employees of the above company, the above company (or the defendant who is the representative director thereof) shall not be deemed to be directly responsible for the labor contract, and there is no error of law
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)