Whether or not a person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to a business manager or other matters related to workers under Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act is a worker subject to the rules of employment.

Even if a person who was in the office of the Korea Coal Corporation's head of the ○○ Mining Office, the head of the △△ Mining Center's development port, and the head of the △ Mining Center's head of the △△, is a so-called employer who acts on behalf of a business owner in relation to matters concerning workers under Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act, this is merely a so-called employer in relation to workers under his own subordinate to the above work, and in relation to the above work, he is an employee subject to the

Plaintiff 1 and two other attorneys of the Defense Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Song-tae, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na2809 delivered on April 2, 1976

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

The defendant's attorney's appeal is examined.

With respect to the first and third points

According to the judgment of the court below, the defendant corporation's bonus paid by the defendant corporation to its employees by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the determination of the regular amount of bonus paid by the defendant corporation and the determination of the regular amount of bonus paid by the defendant corporation, and judged that the bonus paid by the defendant corporation to its employees should be calculated by including the bonus paid in the three months prior to his retirement, among the average wage which is the basis of the calculation of the retirement allowance of the defendant corporation, it cannot be said that there was an error of misunderstanding the concept of judgment omission or average wage, such as the argument in the determination process, and according to the judgment below, the defendant's assertion that the rules on the retirement allowance were enacted under the premise that the wage rules of the defendant corporation were not included in the average wage from the beginning to the beginning, and had already been established in custom since it was enforced in practice without objection, in light of the evidence at the time of the original adjudication, and even if the intention in the court at the time of the enactment of the above provisions was alleged, it cannot be justified by the judgment itself.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the facts duly established by the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiffs recognized the fact that the plaintiffs received bonuses in the quarter prior to retirement, the measures that the court below calculated retirement allowances by including the bonus received in the average wage should be reasonable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the method of including bonuses in the basic wage, such as the argument.

On the fourth ground

According to the records, since the plaintiff 1's director general of the ○○ Mining Center is a person who was in the office of the head of the △△△ Mining Center development port, the plaintiff 2 was in the head of the △△△ Mining Center development port, the plaintiffs are merely employers in relation to his own subordinate workers under the Labor Standards Act, and this is merely a so-called employer in relation to his own subordinate workers, and in relation to the defendant corporation, he is a worker who is employed by the defendant corporation and is subject to the rules of employment of the defendant corporation. Thus, as long as the rules of employment of the defendant corporation are established, the worker is a trade union or non-subscriber, or is subject to the rules of employment regardless of the rules of employment. Accordingly, the decision of the court below that the matters concerning the working conditions of the rules of employment cannot be unilaterally modified without the consent of the workers, and therefore, it is reasonable to judge that the plaintiffs' modification of the terms of employment without the consent of the plaintiffs is null and void. Therefore, the court below's decision is justified.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 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 Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)