logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.09.07 2017두46899
요양불승인처분취소
Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “worker” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act means a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

(Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Labor Standards Act). Determination as to whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act should be made depending on whether the substance of the labor provision relationship is a subordinate relationship to an employer, rather than whether a contract is an employment contract, a contract for work, or a delegation contract.

In this context, whether an employer has a subordinate relationship should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the economic and social conditions, such as determining the content of the work, whether the employer is subject to the rules of employment or service, whether the employer is subject to considerable direction and supervision during the performance of work, whether the employer is bound by the working hours and working places, whether the employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account, whether the employer has a risk, such as the creation of profits and losses from the provision of labor, whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the work itself, whether the basic salary or fixed wage has been determined, whether the employer was withheld from the income tax, whether the continuity and degree of the relationship of the provision of labor, whether the employer has exclusive responsibility for the employer, and whether the status of the employee is recognized under the social security law.

However, the Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29736 Decided December 7, 2006, etc., on the ground that the circumstances such as whether the basic wage or fixed wage was determined, whether the labor income tax was withheld, and whether the social security system was recognized as an employee, are not recognized in that it is highly likely for the employer to arbitrarily determine the employee by taking advantage of the economic superior position.

arrow