A. Whether the failure of business falls under the grounds for postponement of retirement allowance payment under the proviso of Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act

B. Whether a person who provides labor in the form of a contract for work constitutes a worker under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act

A. The mere fact that the employer was unable to pay the amount of pressured funds due to the depression of the business cannot be said to be “special circumstances” where the payment date of retirement allowances can be extended under the proviso of Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act.

(b) Even if a contract is borrowed in the form of contract, if the contents of the contract are to provide specific labor only to the business or workplace of a contractor while maintaining a subordinate relationship between the employer and the employer, and are to receive efficient or piece rates with respect to the provision of labor, the person who provides labor accordingly constitutes “worker” as prescribed in Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act.

A. Articles 30 and 109 of the Labor Standards Act

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 86No820 delivered on February 17, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The proviso of Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the payment date of retirement allowances, etc. may be extended by an agreement between the parties when a worker retires, and the employer was unable to receive monetary pressure due to the failure of his/her business, etc., cannot be said to constitute a special circumstance as set forth above. Therefore, if the Defendant did not pay retirement allowances, etc. at the time without any extension agreement between the employee and the employee, the lower court is justifiable to the same purport

Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "worker" refers to a person who provides work for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace regardless of the type of occupation, and even if the contract is borrowed in the form of a contract, if the contents of the contract only aim at the business or workplace of a contractor while maintaining a subordinate relationship between the employer and the contractor, and is to receive the amount of efficiency or performance for the provision of labor, the person who provides labor is a worker as unlawful.

Therefore, the court below confirmed the fact that Kim Tae-soo provided labor under his direction and received the salary as a contract system in the defendant's workplace, and it is also justifiable to regard the above Kim Tae-tae as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

Ultimately, there is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles or violating the rules of evidence as asserted in the judgment of the court below.

With respect to a judgment on which a fine is imposed as in the instant case, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing under the Criminal Procedure Act. All of the arguments

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)