The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) was only a temporary employee of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) (hereinafter “the instant construction”) who is the executor of the work for finishing the E hotel in Jeju City D (hereinafter “the instant construction”), and is not an employer who lent a license for C Co., Ltd.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act constitutes “a person who acts on behalf of the business owner” under Article 2(1)2 of the Labor Standards Act, on the ground that he received construction payment from H and received work instructions from the Defendant through G and received work instructions from the Defendant at the construction site of this case, and the Defendant received construction payment from H and paid it to the construction company, etc.

B. The phrase “employer” as stipulated in Articles 109 and 36 of the Labor Standards Act refers to the business owner, the person in charge of business management, and other persons who act on behalf of the business owner with respect to matters relating to workers (Article 2(1)2 of the Act). Here, “a person who acts on behalf of the business owner with respect to other matters relating to workers” refers to a person who is given certain authority and responsibility by the business owner with respect to matters relating to the determination of working conditions, such as personnel affairs, wages, welfare, labor management, etc., or orders, direction, or supervision of business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8364 Decided May 11, 2006). As duly admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant, even though the defendant was merely the site manager of a nominal construction company, has been chosen and employed under his/her own responsibility, directed and supervise the work to receive money from the company and pay it to workers. As such, the defendant is a "worker" in relation to a worker.