Whether an act of "involving another person's employment for profit" prohibited by Article 8 of the former Labor Standards Act necessarily requires specific introduction or mediation (negative)

Considering the legislative intent of Article 8 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007) and the relevant legal provisions such as the Employment Security Act, the act of “the intervention in the employment of another person for profit” under the above provision, namely, the act of a third party affecting the establishment or renewal of a labor relationship by introducing or arranging the employment of another person for profit, shall include an act to the extent of receiving money and valuables in return, and it does not necessarily have to proceed to the act of introducing or arranging a labor relationship to the extent that it directly affects the establishment or renewal of a labor relationship.

Article 8 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of April 11, 2007) (see current Article 9)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Sejong, Attorney Kim Young-cheon

Suwon District Court Decision 2006No2559 Decided October 12, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 8 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007, the same applies below) provides that "no person shall intervene in the employment of another person for profit or gain profits as an intermediary, unless otherwise provided by the Act." Here, "the intervention in the employment of another person for profit" refers to the act that affects the establishment or renewal of employment relations by a third party, such as introducing or arranging the employment of another person for profit (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3192, Aug. 23, 2007).

In addition, in light of the legislative purport of the above provision to prevent a third party from taking advantage of workers by directly or indirectly participating in the employment of another person, and the relevant legal provisions such as Employment Security Act, which provide detailed details as to the type and procedure of the permissible act among the involvement in the employment of another person prohibited under the above provision, such as the act of "the intervention in the employment of another person for profit" under the above provision, i.e., the act of a third party affecting the establishment or renewal of employment relations, such as introducing or arranging the employment of another person for profit, shall be deemed to include the act of allowing a third party to arrange the employment of another person and receiving the money and valuables in return, and it does not necessarily mean that a specific introduction or mediation act should be done to the extent that it directly affects the establishment or renewal of employment relations.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's act of receiving money in return for the request from the job seeker who has been in a position to have a de facto influence on the selection of the company's employees for a considerable period of time due to the company's labor union's employees constitutes an act prohibited under Article 8 of the former Labor Standards Act, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application of the above provision. The grounds for appeal are not accepted.

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)