[1] Criteria for determining whether an employee is a worker under the Labor Standards Act

[2] The case holding that a delivery service provider engaged in door-to-door service using his/her own Obbba constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act

[1] In determining whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act, regardless of whether the contract form is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for work, it shall be determined by whether the worker provided work in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages in substance. In determining whether a dependent relationship exists as mentioned above, the contents of work shall be determined by the employer and shall be subject to the rules of employment or the rules of service, etc. of the employer and shall be subject to individual command and supervision from the employer in the course of work performance, whether the worker is designated working hours and place of work by the employer, whether the worker is subject to the replacement of work, such as having the worker done work by proxy with a third party, whether the characteristic of remuneration is the object of work, whether the basic salary or fixed wage is determined, whether the continuousness and degree of the employment relationship is exclusive to the employer, whether the worker has a status as a worker under other Acts and subordinate statutes such as the social security system, and whether the worker lacks the economic and social conditions of the parties concerned, and whether the worker is subject to protection under the Labor Standards Act.

[2] The case holding that a delivery service provider engaged in door-to-door service using one's own Obbba constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act

[1] Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da22859 delivered on December 9, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 448), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da57498 delivered on February 9, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 625), Supreme Court Decision 99Da5484 delivered on June 26, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1681)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Dong-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daejeon High Court Decision 2003Nu788 delivered on November 6, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

In determining whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act, regardless of whether the form of a contract is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for work, it shall be determined by whether a worker has provided work in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in substance. In determining whether a dependent relationship exists as mentioned above, the contents of work shall be determined by the employer, whether the work is subject to the rules of employment or the rules of service, etc., specific direction and supervision of the employer in the process of work performance, whether the worker is designated as working hours and place and is detained by the employer, whether the worker is replaced by the work, whether the worker has the characteristic of work in itself, whether the characteristic of the work is the object of the work, whether the basic wage or fixed wage is determined in terms of withholding tax on earned income, whether the worker has continued to provide labor relations and the degree thereof, whether the worker has a status as an employee, and whether the worker has a dependent relationship with the two parties' economic and social conditions, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da52948, Apr. 26, 1999).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 was unable to use the non-party 1's daily order delivery service because it was difficult for the non-party 1 to take part of the non-party 1's daily order delivery service from the non-party 201 to the non-party 1's office office's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's daily order delivery service.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to workers under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)