A. Whether a special employment contract under the condition of continuous suspension of work between a chartered bus company and a daily preliminary driver can be deemed to have been established (negative)

B. Whether a preliminary driver is an employee under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act (negative)

A. In a case where a bus operator of a chartered bus company is unable to work on board due to a regular driver’s leave, absence from office, etc. after securing 3,4 preliminary driver’s license in a usual manner to pay a daily allowance out of the vehicle operation expenses under his/her responsibility and use it for daily work, the bus operator individually obtained permission from a preliminary driver through telephone, etc. and let him/her drive the bus and pay daily allowances to him/her at daily or monthly level as desired by the other party, it is merely that the relationship between the preliminary driver and the company has occurred repeatedly during a fixed period of time, and there is no special employment contract established under the condition that the worker’s relationship with the worker under the Labor Standards Act is continuously applied or applied mutatis mutandis.

B. In light of the fact that the method of requesting service on board a company's driver is not a right instruction, and that the discretion of the operator is a driver, and it cannot be readily concluded that daily allowances have the nature of the worker only, it cannot be regarded as an employee under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, in light of the fact that the method of requesting service on board a company's driver is not a right instruction.

(a) Article 17 of the Labor Standards Act;

Plaintiff

Han-ju Tour Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na17684 delivered on September 25, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

According to the judgment of the court below, the defendant is justified in finding that he had no relations between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, and employs 150 full-time employees, including 28 bus drivers, on the premise that he had no relations between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2, and that he had no relations with the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 for 10 days on the following day. On the premise that he had no relations with the plaintiff 1 and the above 14 days on the premise that he had no relations with the plaintiff 1 and the above 14 days on the premise that he had no relations with the defendant 2. On the premise that he had no relations with the plaintiff 1 and the above 10 days on the date of his previous bus operation, he may request the plaintiff to be appointed as a full-time driver or a full-time driver on the premise that he had no relations with the plaintiff 2 on the 18th day on the date of his previous bus operation. The plaintiff's previous driver on the 14th day on the ground that he could not be employed.

In addition, since the concept of "worker" is the original legal concept, its specific meaning is bound to be different according to the law that prescribes it, and in individual labor relations such as this case, the issue is bound to be solved mainly with the concept of "worker" under the Labor Standards Act. Thus, under the above facts acknowledged by the court below, the judgment of the court below that judged the plaintiff cannot be regarded as an employee under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, in light of the fact that the method of requesting work on board by the defendant is not a right instruction, but a request for work on board is a request and the discretion of the defendant to accept the work on board is the plaintiff, and that daily allowances cannot be readily determined as the subject of the worker's body, and therefore, the theory to criticize it is correct

The Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1193 Decided January 12, 1990 89Nu1193 Decided January 12, 1990 pointing out the theory of the lawsuit is related to the labor relations under the labor-management law governing the collective labor relations, and therefore,

Therefore, all arguments are without merit, and this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)