Requirements for deeming the person employed by the plaintiff employer to be a third party's employee and engaged in the third party's business at the third party's place of business.

Article 2(1)1 and 2 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 99Ma628 delivered on July 12, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 1924) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19946 delivered on November 12, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2525)

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2007No2589 Decided January 17, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Workers under the Labor Standards Act refer to those who provide labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages. If the employer is employed by the employer of a third party and who is engaged in the work of a third party at the workplace of a third party, the employer of a third party is merely a formal and nominal one, such as having no identity or independence as the employer, which can be deemed identical to the labor agency of a third party, and in fact, the relevant employee is in a subordinate relationship with the third party, and the person who actually pays wages is the third party, and the other party to the provision of labor is also a third party, so an implied employment contract relationship between the relevant employee and the third party is established (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Ma628, Jul. 12, 199; 97Nu1946, Nov. 12, 199, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in affirming the judgment of the court of first instance which affirmed the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of each criminal facts in the judgment against the defendant on the grounds that the defendant concluded a building management contract of the Rip Building with the non-indicted 1, the representative director of the Ripson Co., Ltd., and employed the non-indicted 2 directly for the implementation of the above management contract, and that the non-indicted 2 should be deemed the non-indicted 2's employer, and that the Ripson Co., Ltd. cannot be deemed the non-indicted 2's employer, and there is no error in the misapprehension

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)