logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.12.11 2013다77706
퇴직금
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangnam Branch Branch Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act shall be determined in accordance with whether a contract form is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and whether a labor provider provides labor in a subordinate relationship to an employer for the purpose of wages in the business or workplace;

In this context, whether an employer has a subordinate relationship should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various economic and social conditions, such as determining the contents of business, under the rules of employment or service regulations, whether an employer is subject to considerable direction and supervision during the performance of duties, whether an employer is bound by working hours and a labor provider, whether an employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account, whether a labor provider voluntarily has a risk, such as the creation of profits and losses from the provision of labor, whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the work itself, whether the basic salary or fixed wage has been determined, whether the wage was withheld at source, whether the continuous performance of the labor provision relationship, the existence and degree of the exclusive affiliation to the employer, and whether the status of an employee is recognized under the social security system.

However, the circumstances such as whether a basic wage or fixed wage was determined, whether a labor income tax was withheld, and whether a person is recognized as an employee on the social security system, are not recognized as having high possibility of arbitrary determination by taking advantage of economic superior status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29736, Dec. 7, 2006). 2. Reviewing the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

The defendant is below the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

arrow