The case holding that the land owner does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act or the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

After Gap joined a trucking one motor vehicle into a transportation company, the borrower and the driver do not perform the fixed duties while driving the motor vehicle, but are engaged in the business of loading the cargo in accordance with the order at that time, and they do not receive any benefits from the company, and they do not receive any benefits from the company. However, if the company has operated the motor vehicle in such a manner that it pays only the admission fees and the taxes for the company and operates the motor vehicle in lieu of administrative affairs such as insurance, it cannot be deemed as a person who provides the work for the purpose of wages even if the company has paid the industrial accident insurance premium to the company, it cannot be deemed as a person who provides the work for the purpose of wages.

Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 3(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Plaintiff

The head of Seoul Southern District Labor Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu307 delivered on June 15, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the facts established by the court below, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") purchased one truck of 2.5 tons in the name of the non-party 2.5 tons in the non-party 1 company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") and moved into the non-party 1 company, without having a separate driver, who is engaged in the business of driving the above vehicle as the borrower and the driver, and has been engaged in the business of driving the cargo such as dives or girs in accordance with the order of the non-party company at that time, and was not paid by the non-party company, and the transport income was paid by the non-party company, and the non-party company operated the above vehicle in the manner of carrying out the above business instead of the administrative work such as the insurance work. Accordingly, the deceased cannot be viewed as a worker under the Labor Standards Act or a beneficiary under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act because it cannot be viewed as a worker of the non-party company because it had an industrial accident insurance premium borne by the non-party company.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)