The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Since the representative of the Do specialized driving school D(hereinafter “instant driving school”) is not the defendant, the defendant is not obligated to pay E wages as the employer of the said driving school.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 2(1)2 of the Labor Standards Act, the term “employer” refers to an employer, a person in charge of business management, or a person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to matters relating to workers. The term “person in charge of business management” refers to a person who is responsible for general business management and represents or acts on behalf of an external business upon delegation of all or part of business management by an employer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1199, Apr. 10, 2008). A person who acts on behalf of an employer with respect to matters relating to workers, such as personnel affairs, wages, welfare, labor management, etc., or orders, direction, or supervision of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5984, Oct. 9, 2008). All of them constitute criminal liability with respect to overdue payment, such as wages under the Labor Standards Act.

On the other hand, the determination of who is liable for the obligation under Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act should be based on the actual labor relationship regardless of the type of contract or the content of the relevant laws and regulations.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., H, registered as the representative of the instant driving school, are the Defendant’s spouse, and ② all the persons related to the instant driving school, the above H, the Vice President F, instructors E, and drivers G of driving vehicles, etc., are the Defendant’s driving school.