logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.05.31 2018노3804
근로기준법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was not an employer but a daily worker of the same kind as D, and thus there is no obligation to pay wages to D.

2. Determination

A. Determination of whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act shall be based on whether a worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages regardless of the form of a contract. Determination of whether the contents of work are determined by the employer, whether the employer is subject to the rules of employment, service regulations, personnel regulations, etc., and whether the employer is specifically and directly directed and supervised by the employer in the course of performing work, whether the working hours and place are designated by the employer, whether the employer is subject to detention, ownership of equipment, raw materials, work tools, etc., whether the remuneration has the characteristic of work itself, whether there is a basic salary or fixed wage, whether there is a withholding of wage and salary tax, etc., whether the status of an employee should be determined by other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the continuation of the labor provision relationship, the existence and degree of exclusive affiliation to the employer, whether the status of the employee should be determined by the economic and social conditions of

In determining who is liable for an employer to whom employee is obligated under the Labor Standards Act, actual labor relations should be based regardless of the form of a contract or the content of the relevant laws and regulations, and in this case, the aforementioned various factors should be comprehensively considered.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do300 Decided December 7, 2006, etc.). B.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant is running a construction business with 3 and 4 full time workers at his/her domicile, and ii).

arrow