The case holding that a major belonging to △△ University, a training institution, constitutes a worker prescribed in the Labor Standards Act.

The case holding that since the major of △△ University, a training institution, provided labor, such as medical research, education, and epidemiological investigation, in a substantive subordinate relationship under the direction and supervision of the relevant university, along with the status of the trainee who completed the training course, and provided wages in return for the provision of labor, such as medical research, education, and epidemiological investigation, at the actual subordinate relationship under the direction and supervision of the relevant university, it shall not be deemed as workers prescribed in Article 14 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5305, Mar. 13, 1997) and the said worker cannot be deemed as not workers on the ground that the medical resident of the training hospital did not perform medical treatment for patients or

Articles 14 (see current Article 14), 28 (see current Article 34) and 9, 10, and 14 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309, Mar. 13, 1997); Articles 9, 10, and 14 of the Regulations on Training and Recognition of Qualifications for Medical Doctors

Supreme Court Decision 95Da28731 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 915 delivered on April 24, 1998) Supreme Court Decision 97Da57672 delivered on April 24, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1461)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Korea

Daegu District Court Decision 99Na21460 delivered on June 21, 2000

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the legal established by the court below, the plaintiffs, as a major of the △△ University affiliated with the defendant ○○ University, retired from office in the school room for the prevention thereof. The plaintiffs were appointed to this university through physical examinations necessary for the appointment of public officials. The plaintiffs completed preventive medical major training courses while working at this university and completed training courses for the term of office at this university and the guidance and supervision of the principal of the university and the professor, working at the public health and medical institution determined in the course of the training courses, medical education and thesis guidance related to preventive medicine related to the prevention of students and graduate students, planning of work related to health and medical care programs at the outside institution, planning of research tasks commissioned by the outside institution, conducting various epidemological research programs requested by the outside institution when social problems occur, and the plaintiffs were classified as other employees of the university in consideration of these tasks, and received various allowances such as horse-day allowances, good attendance allowances, and resident tax withheld from the school, and the head of the educational institution's major training programs and training programs at the 10th level can be determined within the scope of the Plaintiffs' qualifications and training institutions (in principle.).

Therefore, according to the above circumstances and the relevant provisions, the plaintiffs, as a major of the training institution called ○○ University △△ University, and as an trainee who completed the training course, together with the status of an employee who provided labor such as medical research, education, and epidemiological investigation in the actual subordinate relationship under the direction and supervision of the relevant university, and received wages in return for the provision of labor, such as medical research, education, and epidemiological investigation. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed as a worker under Article 14 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5305, Mar. 13, 1997) in relation to the defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed as a worker under the relationship with the defendant. Unlike the major of the training hospital, the plaintiffs did not conduct medical treatment for patients, or did not have the retirement allowance item in the budget of the relevant △△ University.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the plaintiffs constituted a worker under the Labor Standards Act is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence and the rules of experience or in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the concept of workers.

The grounds of appeal are not accepted.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)