[1] Whether a daily allowance system or part-time strike is included in the "vocational" under Article 19 (1) of the Employment Security Act (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the act of arranging and introducing daily employee recruitment fees under the pretext of membership fees from job offerers and from job offerers to job offerers constitutes fee-charging job placement service under the Employment Security Act

[1] "Vocational work" under Article 19 (1) of the Employment Security Act includes not necessarily a continuous work at a certain workplace or for the purpose of maintaining a livelihood, but also temporary or part-time work for the purpose of wages as long as it is for wage purposes. Thus, daily wage system or part-time strike shall also be included in the occupation stipulated in the above provision.

[2] The case holding that an act of arranging and introducing a part of the daily employment relationship with a female who wants to find a job as a part of a strike receives a referral fee as a membership fee from the female who wants to find a job, and also receives a referral fee from the person who wants to employ the part of the strike as a member registration fee, and also conducts fee-charging job placement service as stipulated

[1] Article 19(1) of the Employment Security Act / [2] Articles 4 and 19(1) of the Employment Security Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Do2558 delivered on June 11, 1985 (Gong1985, 1032) Supreme Court Decision 93Do367 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3201)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul District Court Decision 96No4983 delivered on October 30, 1996

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 19 (1) of the Employment Security Act provides that "the permission for fee-charging job placement services shall be divided into domestic and overseas fee-charging job placement services on the basis of the place where a worker subject to introduction intends to find employment, and any person who intends to conduct domestic or overseas fee-charging job placement services shall obtain the permission of the Mayor/Do Governor, and any person who intends to conduct domestic or overseas fee-charging job placement services shall obtain the permission of the Minister of Labor. The same shall apply to the modification of permitted matters." Article 19 (8) provides that "the requirements for permission under paragraph (1), types of occupation subject to permission and other matters necessary for fee-charging job placement services shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 22 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the Minister of Labor shall determine and notify types of occupation excluded from the permission for fee-charging job placement services pursuant to Article 19 (8) of the Act." Article 19 (1) of the same Act provides that "the Minister of Labor shall not grant permission for fee-charging job placement services without permission, and it shall be decided and announced by the Minister of the Minister of Labor for 3 hours or 9.

Meanwhile, Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Employment Security Act provides that "job placement services" means mediation of the establishment of an employment relationship between job offerers and job seekers upon receiving an application for job offering or job seeking, and Article 4 subparagraph 4 of the same Act provides that "free job placement services" means job placement services conducted without receiving fees, membership fees, or any other money or valuables, and "free job placement services" means job placement services other than free job placement services. Thus, if job offerers and job seekers are engaged in job offerers and job seekers who receive money or other valuables on any pretext, and mediates the establishment of an employment relationship, fee-charging job placement services shall be deemed to be conducted under the same Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the defendants on the ground that the defendant 1's act of mediating and introducing part of daily employment relationship using telephone for 363 job seekers as of September 29, 1995 on the ground that the defendant 1's job-seeking part received referral fees of KRW 40,000 per annum and KRW 15,000 per annum as membership fees per person (job-seeking) from the female who wants to find a job, and the person who intends to employ part of the part of the part of the part of the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the part in the job-seeking part in the part in the part in the part in the job-seeking part in the part in the part in

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)