(a) Whether a worker who receives a certain ratio of income in the form of allowance depending on the amount of his/her labor constitutes a worker under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act in cases where he/she provides specific labor while maintaining a subordinate relationship with the employer (affirmative);

(b) The case holding that a massage club affiliated with a massage clinic constitutes a worker under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act in light of its management status, such as the type of work and type of receiving benefits, and its business objectives;

A. Even if a worker was paid a fixed rate of his/her remuneration in the form of allowance not by the monthly wage but by the amount of his/her labor provided, if the form of his/her labor provides a specific labor while maintaining a subordinate relationship between the employer and the employer, it constitutes a worker under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act.

(b) The case holding that the above Marine's work form constitutes a worker under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act in light of its work form, management status such as receiving benefits such as the above "A" in accordance with the operation of the above Marine, and its business objective, such as the fact that the work form of the Marine has a fixed daily commuting time, is under the comprehensive command and supervision of the representative of the Marine's place of waiting and the provision of massage practice, and the rules of employment have been

Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Do604 delivered on May 26, 1987 (Gong1987, 1112) 90Da20251 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 2242) 91Da24250 delivered on December 13, 1991 (Gong192,507)

Defendant

Defendant

Jeju District Court Decision 91No120 delivered on February 21, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even if a certain worker received a fixed rate of income in the form of an allowance according to the amount of his/her own labor, not the monthly wage, if the form of his/her labor is deemed to be a worker under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, if he/she provides a specific labor while maintaining a subordinate relationship between the employer and the employer.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence, the lower court determined that: (a) the purpose of the massage treatment established by the Defendant is to administer the massage treatment; (b) the number of full-time workers belonging to the Defendant and served after entering into a labor contract; (c) the said massage treatment was provided in a hotel set from 19:00 to 02:00 on a daily basis upon the Defendant’s instruction at the customer’s request; (d) the Defendant was establishing and implementing the rules of employment that set forth the working conditions of the massage in operating the said massage treatment; (e) the Defendant changed the fixed monthly pay system from May 1, 1989 to set the amount equivalent to the fixed monthly rate of the treatment fees to be paid to the massage; and (e) the Defendant acquired and managed the said massage treatment in the same manner as the previous one; and (e) the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s violation of the rules of employment; and (e) the Defendant was subject to comprehensive direction and supervision over the management status of the massage treatment, including retirement allowances, and (e) the period of dismissal of the Defendant’s work.

In light of the records, the above determination of the court below is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles on workers and employers under the Labor Standards Act, and it cannot be said that the defendants are the blind who suffered from physical activities, and the application of the Labor Standards Act cannot be excluded. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)