The case holding that although labor workers formed a labor union and concluded a collective agreement with the defendant company, it cannot be deemed that there was a labor contract under the Labor Standards Act.

Although railroad cargo handling workers did not establish an individual labor contract with the defendant company, they have continuously handled the cargo handled by the defendant company by establishing a labor union in order to guarantee their work rights and interests, and under the direction and supervision of the defendant company within a certain extent, the defendant company is under the direction and supervision of the defendant company, and even if the defendant company conducted industrial accident insurance and hygiene inspection as a business owner to do so and withheld the tax on Class A labor income, if the worker did not belong to the defendant company and entered into a same or a similar collective agreement with the non-party company as concluded between the defendant company and the non-party company, and continuously supplied the same labor as the defendant company needed, it cannot be deemed that there was a subordinate labor contract under the Labor Standards Act between

Articles 17 and 28 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Attorneys Lee Woo-won, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na3284 delivered on November 2, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows:

All of the plaintiffs are union members of the Korea Transportation Workers' Union Act, and the plaintiffs' union members are established with the defendant company and union members of the collective agreement by concluding the collective agreement with the defendant through the above transportation labor union. Even if considering the specific contents of the collective agreement, the above collective agreement is clear that the above collective agreement is based on the Constitution and labor relations laws and regulations, and the company's right to employ workers is deducted from the union wages, the union has the right to inspect documents, such as company's wages, and wages are determined as contract wage and are paid directly to the union members after consultation with the union. The provision such as prohibition of departure from the workplace, prohibition of union activities during the hours of work, prohibition of worker's work and accident compensation duty, and convenience such as arranging welfare facilities and other medical institutions, and the defendant's establishment of the collective agreement on the right to supervise work for the company's employees under the rules of employment, and it is clear that the plaintiffs and union members have the nature of the collective agreement as part of the defendant's labor union and union employees' subordinate to the defendant Labor Union.

However, in light of the records and the reasoning of the original judgment, although the railroad cargo crew workers, such as the plaintiffs, began to work as free workers from the beginning of the beginning, even though they did not establish an individual labor contract with the defendant company, they have formed transportation labor union and continued to perform cargo to be handled by the defendant company by entering into a collective agreement between the labor union and the defendant company, and under the company's instruction and supervision within a certain limit, the company is under the employer's management of industrial accident insurance and sanitation inspection as a business owner, and withhold Class A wage and salary income. However, although the plaintiffs did not belong only to the defendant company, the plaintiffs' union members continued to provide the same or similar collective agreements as agreed between the defendant company and the non-party transportation company such as the Korean transportation warehouse company, the Japanese feed company, and the Korea Telecommunication terminal, etc., as well as the defendant company, and even if they did not directly deal with the cargo, it is clear that the court below's judgment does not have any special relation between the defendant company and the defendant company and its subordinate business owner.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)