209 High Court Decision 5332 Violation of the Employment Security Act

1. Oral ○○ (0000 - 0000 - 000), shipball, and entertainment business;

Housing Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOOOOOOO0000

Reference domicile ○○○○○○○○○

2. Han-○○ (0000 - 00000) and the president of ○○○○.

Housing OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOO

Reference domicile Mapo-gu Seoul 00000

3. Jeong○○ (0000 - 00000) and the President of OOO;

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

Jung-gu Seoul Central District ○○○○

4. ○○ Co., Ltd. (0000 - 000000)

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

○

O○ ○○

5. ○○○○○○, Inc. (000 - 000000)

OOOOOOO in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

Han representative director ○

6. ○○○○○○ (0000-0000006) Representative Director ○○○○

Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

○○○○

7. Jeong○○ (0000 - 00000) and ○○○ president.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Daegu Middle-gu ○○○○○○○○○

8. ○○○ Co., Ltd. (0000 - 000000)

Seoul Eunpyeong-gu ○○○○○○○○○○○

Ma○○○

9. ○○○○○○○, Inc. (0000 - 00000)

Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City 0000000000

○○○

10. Doz. (0000 - 00000 - 000) and the president of Doz. ○○ Doz.

Housing Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Attachment] ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

k. Maximum ○○ (0000 - 00000) - Companywon (former ○○○○○○○○○○○)

A person shall be appointed.

○○○○○○○○○○○ in the area of a branch of Sung-nam City.

OOOOOO in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-gu

Maintenance smoke

Attorney Cho Jong-young, Cho Young-young (Defendant O○○, Han-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, and a corporation)

○○, ○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○, Inc.

Ship)

Attorney Jeong-chul, (Defendant ○○, Defendant 2, ○○○○○, Defendant 3, etc.)

Apony boat for ○○

Law Firm Song-Hun, Attorney Jung-chul et al. (a private ship for defendant Jeong-○)

May 18, 2010

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. Defendant Jeon-○

The defendant is a person who operates ○○○○○○ building in Gangnam-gu Seoul, a corporation with 000 OOOO in the office.

A person who intends to conduct fee-charging job placement services shall register with the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on October 23, 2006, the defendant, without registering, requested the above office to introduce a foreigner model to contribute to the advertisement from the advertiser, Inc., Ltd. at the above office around October 23, 2006. The defendant invited the above company to contribute to the advertisement of the above company by inviting Ra○○○○○○○○○ (Ra0000000), a model of a foreigner's nationality, to contribute to the advertisement of the above company, and received 300,000,000 won from the above advertiser as an intermediary fee. From the above date to July 15, 2008, the defendant conducted fee-charging job placement service by introducing a foreign model to the advertiser for 245 times as an advertising model.

B. Defendant Maximum○○○

The Defendant is a person who operated ○○○○○ Management Company at the office located in Songpa-gu Seoul O000 000 ○000 from March 20, 2007 to September 30, 2008.

A person who intends to conduct fee-charging job placement services shall register with the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on June 16, 2007, the defendant, without registering, requested the above office to introduce and request a foreigner model to contribute to the advertisement from the advertiser, corporation ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (A1000000000), a foreigner model of nationality of Slovakia, into the Republic of Korea, and let the above advertiser contribute to the advertisement of the above company, and received KRW 300,000,00 as an intermediary fee from the above advertiser, and operated fee-charging job placement services by introducing the foreigner model to the advertiser for 29 times from the above date to March 24, 2008.

C. Defendant Jung-○○

The defendant is a person who operates ○○○○○○○○○○ in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, a corporation with ○○○○○○○○○○.

A person who intends to conduct fee-charging job placement services shall register with the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on October 23, 2006, the Defendant, without registering, introduced a foreigner model to contribute to advertisements from the said office, an advertiser, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (Er0000000000), which is a foreigner model of U.S. nationality, to invite the Republic of Korea to contribute to the advertisement of the said company, and then received KRW 100,000,000 from the said advertiser as an intermediary fee, and had the said advertiser contribute to the advertisement of the said company. In addition, the Defendant introduced the foreigner model to the advertiser for 105 times from the said date to July 12, 2008, thereby running a fee-charging vocational opening business.

D. Defendant Oral ○○

The defendant is a person who operates ○○ Co., Ltd. in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00000000000.

A person who intends to conduct fee-charging job placement services shall register with the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on January 4, 2006, the Defendant, without registering, introduced a foreigner model to contribute to the advertisement from the advertiser company ○○○○○○○O (Si000000000), which is a foreigner model of Brazil’s nationality, to invite the above company to contribute to the advertisement of the above company in Korea, and then received KRW 150,000 as an intermediary fee from the above advertiser. From the above date to July 23, 2008, the Defendant carried out fee-charging job placement services by introducing the foreign model to the advertiser for 449 times from the above date to July 23, 2008.

E. Defendant Han-○○

The Defendant is a person who operates ○○○○○○○○ in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, a corporation with ○○○○○○.

A person who intends to conduct fee-charging job placement services shall register with the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on January 2006, the Defendant, without registering, requested to introduce a foreigner model to be contributed to the advertisement from the advertiser, at the above office around 2006, at the request of the advertiser, and had a foreign model (Ni0000000), which is a foreigner model of the nationality of Ulina, invite the company to contribute to the advertisement of the above company, and received KRW 1,80,000,00 as an intermediary fee from the above advertiser, and conducted fee-charging job placement service by introducing the foreign model to the advertiser for 845 times from the above date to July 2008, and allowing him to contribute to the advertisement model.

F. Defendant Jung-○

The defendant is the representative director of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 000 000 Dong, Jung-gu, Seoul.

A person who intends to conduct fee-charging job placement services shall register with the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on November 9, 2006, the Defendant received a request from the above office to introduce and request a foreigner model to contribute to advertising from an advertiser, corporation ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a model of Brazil nationality (B0000000000), which is a model of Brazil nationality)

Along with the fact that Eul invited the above company to contribute to the advertisement of the above company, it received KRW 110,00 from the above advertiser as an intermediary fee, and it introduced a foreign model to the advertiser for 245 times from the above date to December 27, 2008, thereby allowing the advertiser to contribute to the advertisement model.

(g) Defendant OOOOO

The defendant is a corporation with the purpose of entertainment and model introduction and good offices.

The former ○○, the representative director of the defendant, carried out a fee job placement service without registering to the competent authority in the same manner as the statement in paragraph 1(a). The time and place mentioned in paragraph 1(a).

H. Defendant ○○○, Inc., Ltd., the purpose of which is to provide entertainment and entertainment services, etc.

No. 1-C. 1-C. The defendant's employee, at the time and place specified in paragraph 1-C. 1-C. The defendant's work was not registered with the competent authority in the same manner as described in paragraph 1-C.

I. Defendant ○○ Co., Ltd. is a corporation whose purpose is to dispatch human resources.

O○○, a defendant’s employee, carried out a paid job opening project without registering it to the competent authorities in the same manner as the description of section 1(d), at the time and place specified in paragraph 1(d).

A. Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○

The defendant is a corporation with the objective of model and service mediation.

○○○, an employee of the Defendant, performed the Defendant’s work at the time and place specified in paragraph 1-e., Article 1-e., the Defendant’s work at the competent authority without registering it in the same manner as described in paragraph 1-e.

C. Defendant ○○○○○○○○

The defendant is a corporation whose purpose is an artist entertainment business, etc.

f. On the date, time, and place specified in Paragraph 1, 1-f, the defendant's work was conducted without being registered to the competent authority in the same manner as described in Paragraph 1.

2. Determination as to the facts charged against Defendant ○○, ○○, ○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○○, and ○○○○.

A. According to Article 19(1) of the Employment Security Act, a person who intends to conduct domestic fee-charging job placement services shall register with the competent administrative agency (the Mayor/Do Governor, etc.). Article 4 subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that "job placement" refers to mediating the formation of employment contracts between job offerers and job seekers upon receiving an application for job offering or job seeking. Here, "employment contract" or "labor contract under the Labor Standards Act" is not different in terms of both the premise of the dependence of the provision of labor. In light of the purpose of the Employment Security Act to promote the employment security of workers, employment contract under the Employment Security Act is also the same as that under the Labor Standards Act. On the other hand, determination of whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act should be made according to whether a contract is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for work, regardless of whether a worker has a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of earning wages, whether the worker has a duty to pay fixed wage or not, and whether the worker is subject to separate employment regulations and supervision, such as working hours, are determined by the employer.

B. We examine whether each foreigner model introduced by the above defendants pursuant to the above legal principles constitutes an employment contract under the Employment Safety Act with the company that intends to advertise goods as contribution to the advertisement.

C. According to the records, the following circumstances are as follows: ① each foreigner model introduced by the Defendants is engaged in entertainment activities contributed to the advertisement, not continuously providing labor to the relevant company, but most of the goods advertising companies planned by each individual contribution contract; ② the model offered under the contribution contract reveals that the planning of advertisements contributing to the unique identity of the model, so the model does not seem to be specific and direct direction and supervision from the advertiser; ③ the defendants are affiliated with the company of the defendants and contributed foreign models to the advertisement by introducing the foreign model according to the contract with the advertiser, and the foreign model is not directly paid from the advertiser, but it is difficult to view that each company of the defendants received the contribution amount or a certain amount of money from the advertiser according to the ratio of distribution under the contract with each company of the defendants' operation, ④ the defendants' employment contract or foreigner's employment contract are not subordinate to the employment regulations or foreigner's employment contract, and there is no other evidence that the defendants were not subordinate to the employment regulations or foreigner's employment contract under the Employment Security Act.

D. Therefore, in a case where there is no proof of a crime, the above facts charged against the above Defendants are pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. Determination on the facts charged against Defendant ○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○, Inc.

As above, Defendant O○○, ○○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, and Ma○○○○○, insofar as there is no proof of a crime, Defendant corporation, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, and OOOOOO may not be held liable for the joint penal provisions. Therefore, each of them is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the facts charged against the Defendants shall be acquitted, and the summary of the judgment against the Defendants shall be announced in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jong-dae