Whether the representative of a regional medical insurance association has a duty to prepare and report rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act.

In order to impose the obligation to prepare and report rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act on the employers who ordinarily employ not less than 10 workers, the employer shall have the substantive responsibility and authority with respect to the formulation of the rules of employment, preparation of the rules of employment, hearing of opinions of a majority of the labor union or workers, report, etc. In accordance with Article 25 of the Medical Insurance Act, Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Local Medical Insurance Association Operational Rules, the above Operational Rules stipulate almost all matters prescribed by Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, such as the organization, personnel affairs, remuneration, etc. of local medical insurance union workers, and the above Operational Rules actually correspond to the Rules of Employment under the Labor Standards Act. If the representative of the local medical insurance association prepares the rules of employment different from the above Operational Rules, or the Minister of Health and Welfare amends the above Operational Rules, if the above representative hear the opinions of the workers under his control, or the above representative goes against the collective agreement, it cannot be said that the above

Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 25 of the Medical Insurance Act, Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 1 of the Local Medical Insurance Management Rules (Rules No. 577 of the Bosil 190) and Article 2 of the same Act

Defendant

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. According to Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, a prosecutor who is the representative of the Gohap-gun Medical Insurance Association located in Macheon-si, Macheon-do, Macheon-do, where the defendant ordinarily employs 38 workers, and employs 10 or more workers at all times, was required to prepare the rules of employment and report it to the Minister of Labor, but did not report it to the Minister of Labor, and was indicted against the defendant in violation of Article 111 of the same Act.

2. According to the Defendant’s statement in this court and the statement of Nonindicted 1 and 2 regarding the preparation of handling of affairs by judicial police officers, the fact that the Defendant was the representative of the Gohap Military Medical Insurance Association with the number of full-time workers of 38 employees and did not prepare the rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act and did not report it to the Minister

3.However, the defendant does not think that he has a duty to prepare the rules of employment and report to the Minister of Labor. The reasons are as follows:

A. The original rules of employment are prepared by an employer in order to uniformly and uniformly establish the criteria for the employee's service discipline or working conditions in a workplace based on the business management right, and historically, the rules of employment originated from the workplace discipline to effectively control the employee from the standpoint of the employer, and to maintain the order in the workplace. However, today, through thorough administrative supervision of the State, it can play a role of protecting the employee by securing legitimacy of the contents of the rules, posting or keeping them at the workplace, thereby informing the employees of them of the fact, thereby compelling the preparation and contents thereof, imposing measures such as restrictions on the employee's participation in the enactment

In this regard, the Labor Standards Act provides that "an employer who ordinarily employs not less than 10 workers shall report to the Minister of Labor (Article 94) the same rules of employment concerning the matters prescribed in subparagraphs 1 through 11 of the same Article (Article 94), "an employer shall post or keep the rules of employment at all times at each workplace and inform workers thereof (Article 13 (1)); "an employer shall hear the opinion of a majority of workers if there is a trade union organized by the majority of workers at the workplace concerned with the preparation or modification of the rules of employment;" "An employer shall hear the opinion of a majority of workers if there is no trade union organized by the majority of workers at the workplace;" "The rules of employment shall not be contrary to the Acts and subordinate statutes or the collective agreement applicable to the workplace; and the Minister of Labor may order any modification of the rules of employment in conflict with the Acts and subordinate statutes or the collective agreement (Article 97)" as one for securing this, and Article 111 subparagraph 1 and 3 of the Labor Standards Act does not require an employer to prepare or report the rules of employment;

Considering the significance and history of the rules of employment, the duty of the worker to hear opinions in the preparation or revision of the rules of employment, the right of the Minister of Labor to order the change of the rules of employment against the statutes or the collective agreement, and criminal punishment in the case of violation thereof, it is reasonable to interpret that the employer has a duty to comply with the order of the Minister of Labor to prepare the rules of employment, hear opinions of reported workers, and hear opinions of the labor union or the majority of workers, etc. In addition, it is reasonable to interpret that the employer has a substantive authority and responsibility with respect to the formulation of the rules of employment, preparation of the rules of employment, hearing of opinions of the labor union or the majority of workers, and reporting, etc.

B. According to the provisions of Article 7(2), Article 13, Article 14, Article 15, and Article 17 of the Medical Insurance Act, each regional medical insurance association shall be subject to its establishment under the Medical Insurance Act (as of July 1, 1981, the first pilot project for Hongcheon-gun, Maok-gun, and Kun-gun-gun as of July 1, 1982, and the second pilot project for Bosi-gun-gun and Mapo-si as of January 1, 1988, the Ministry of Health and Welfare shall separately stipulate the rules of operation on remuneration and management of the association, including the provisions of Article 9 of the Local Medical Insurance Act, for which the representative of the local medical insurance association’s regulations on remuneration and management under Article 7(2) and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, for which the local medical insurance regulations on remuneration and management are not applicable, and the Act shall be revised to the extent that it violates the Labor Standards Act No. 970, Jan. 1, 1989.

C. Ultimately, the representative of each regional medical insurance association is a person who does not have any substantial authority and responsibility with respect to the formulation and preparation of rules of employment, hearing of opinions of a majority of the trade union or workers, and therefore, cannot be said to have any obligation to report and prepare rules of employment established on the premise that such authority and responsibility exist (Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act also applies to the State, but it is not deemed that the head of a state agency has a duty to report and prepare rules of employment, except as otherwise provided in this Act, Article 67 of the State Public Officials Act provides that matters necessary for the service of public officials shall be prescribed by the National Assembly Regulations, Supreme Court Regulations, or Presidential Decree, and thus, the head of a state agency is

4. If so, the defendant, who is only the representative of the regional medical insurance association, did not prepare and report the rules of employment, shall not be a crime. Thus, the defendant shall be acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

Judges Shin Dong-ho