beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is not an employee to whom the Labor Standards Act applies as an employee.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination of whether a person constitutes a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act as to factual misunderstanding or misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be based on whether, regardless of the form of a contract, the person actually provides an employer with labor for the purpose of wage. Thus, even an officer such as a director or auditor of the company is formally nominal, and in fact, an officer such as a director or auditor of the company has a relationship of receiving remuneration when providing a certain work under the direction and supervision of the representative director or the employer who has a right to work daily and has actually received a certain amount of remuneration, or a certain amount of remuneration when receiving a certain work in return for the performance of the work delegated by the company.
The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court and the first instance court, namely, ① in-house director at the time when G was employed and held shares. However, G did not make an investment, and did not pay the price for the acquisition of shares, and when considering that G did not pay the price for the shares acquired at the time of capital increase for consideration, and that it returned shares without receiving the price, it is difficult to view it as a letter of demand that G participated in the management of the company. ② A company was subscribed to the four-party insurance at the time of its employment, and was a person subject to the source of income tax, ③ the period of commuting to and from work, the place of work, and the place of work was relatively set, and was reported to the Defendant on its business, ④ G’s dividends, etc.