The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) was that the Defendant lent the name of the Defendant Company D (hereinafter “instant Company”) operated by the Defendant to F to run the O-Building Project (hereinafter “instant Project”), and the F was employed by E and G, and E and G was not an employee of the instant Company.

2. Determination of whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act shall be made according to whether a worker has 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 is specifically and directly directed and supervised by the employer in the course of performing work, whether the employer is designated working hours and place of work and is detained by the employer, whether the remuneration is owned by the equipment, raw materials, workplace, etc., whether the remuneration has the characteristic of work itself, whether the basic salary or fixed wage is determined, whether the wage has the characteristic of work itself, whether the wage is withheld from the wage, whether the wage has the continuity of the labor provision relationship and the degree thereof, whether the status of the worker is exclusive to the employer, and whether the economic and social conditions of the both parties, etc.

In determining who is an employer who bears the obligation under Articles 32 and 36 of the Labor Standards Act with respect to a certain employee, the actual employment relationship shall be based regardless of the type of the contract or the content of the relevant laws and regulations, and in this case, the aforementioned various elements shall be comprehensively considered.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do300, Dec. 7, 2006).