Whether the representative director of the reorganization company is an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

The representative director with the right to manage the company's business is not a shareholder of the company but delegated with the authority to conduct all judicial or extrajudicial acts with respect to the company's business. Thus, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, he cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act because he provided a certain work under the direction and supervision of the employer and received a certain wage. When the decision on commencing a company reorganization is made, the right to manage and dispose of the company's business and the assets is exclusively vested in the manager (Article 53 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act). Thus, the representative director of the company loses the above authority to transfer the company to the manager according to the decision on commencing the company reorganization and has the authority to do other business, but he does not lose his status through the commencement of the

Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act; Article 3(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act; Article 53(1) of the Company Reorganization Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

The head of the North Regional Labor Office of Busan Metropolitan City;

Busan High Court Decision 92Gu1841 delivered on May 19, 1993

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

The representative director with business execution authority of a company is not a shareholder of the company but delegated with the authority to conduct all judicial or extrajudicial acts concerning the company's business. Thus, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, the representative director cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act because he provided certain labor under the direction and supervision of the employer and received certain wages. When the decision on commencement of a company reorganization is made, the right to manage and dispose of the company's business and the assets is exclusively vested in the manager (Article 53 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act). Thus, the representative director of the company loses the above authority to transfer to the manager according to the decision on commencement of the company reorganization procedure and has the authority only for other business, but does not lose his status through the commencement of the company reorganization procedure, or have the status of the

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the non-party as a professional manager was a representative director of the non-party Korea-Japan company on April 16, 198, and the non-party company was the non-party company on March 25, 1989 and the non-party company was the non-party company on July 22, 198, and the company was authorized to implement the reorganization plan accordingly on April 16, 1990, and the administrator was appointed separately, but the above non-party continued to serve as the representative director of the non-party company on August 28, 191, and caused death due to the aggravation of high blood pressure, which led to the aggravation of high blood pressure. The above non-party did not have any authority to manage the company or manage its property under the law as the representative director of the liquidation company, and therefore, it cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor by obeying the business owner's direction. In light of the records and the legal principles mentioned above, the court below's findings and judgment are justified.

The circumstances, such as the fact that the Ministry of Labor expressed the above Nonparty’s reply to the payment of industrial accident compensation insurance fees, cannot decide on the above conclusion, and the precedents of the party members cited by the theory of lawsuit are inappropriate to be invoked in this case, unlike this case. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)