Cases in which a medical specialist (ton or volunteer) is regarded as a worker under the Labor Standards Act;

In the case of an intern who is appointed as a medical specialist of a hospital to complete the training course for acquiring qualifications for a medical specialist, he/she shall normally work at 07:00 each day in the case of an intern waiting at 24 hours hospital, and shall work at 19:00 each day, but shall work at night twice a week on average, and according to the medical treatment plan formulated by the hospital, he/she has been under the direction, supervision of a medical specialist and performed medical acts such as treatment, examination, prescription, and collection of patients during night watch, and has been paid regular salary, research expenses, night duty, scholarship allowances, adjustment allowances, etc. from the hospital managers every month, even if he/she has been provided in the training course essential for acquiring qualifications for a medical specialist, the medical specialist also has the status of a worker who is paid wages in accordance with the medical treatment plan determined by the hospital, and thus, he/she also constitutes a contractual relationship between the hospital manager and the manager under the direction and supervision of the hospital.

Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff 1 and 16 others, Plaintiff 3 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the school foundation

Daegu High Court Decision 86Na1561 delivered on June 16, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiffs were employed as a major worker at the above hospital's university ○○ Hospital established and operated by the defendant corporation with no dispute, and only that they were employed for 16 or more full-time employees during the above period. The above hospital was designated as a medical institution that conducts training under the regulations on the training and recognition of qualifications for medical specialists and the Enforcement Rule of the above hospital. The plaintiffs were all licensed medical doctors who completed the above training course for the purpose of acquiring qualifications for medical specialists, and were appointed as a medical doctor at the above hospital's office for the purpose of completing the training course conducted by the head of the above hospital, and were appointed as medical doctor at the above hospital's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department's department.

As determined by the court below, the plaintiffs were appointed as medical specialists of the above hospital by completing the training course for acquiring qualifications for medical specialists, and were employed as medical specialists of the above hospital for 24 hours in the case of the internships, 07:0 hours a day, and 19:00 hours a day, and they were employed for 19:0 times a week at night, but they were employed for 2 times a week at night in accordance with the medical treatment plan established at the above hospital, and were under the direction and supervision of medical specialists, and were under the supervision of medical specialists, and were under the independent judgment during night duty, and were paid regular salary, research expenses, night duty, scholarship allowances, and adjustment allowances every month from the defendant. However, even if the plaintiffs were provided during the essential training course for acquiring qualifications for medical specialists, the plaintiffs' status as to the defendant is to be interpreted as being related to the plaintiffs' status under the direction and supervision of the medical personnel under the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the plaintiffs should be interpreted as being the plaintiffs' status under the supervision and supervision of the medical personnel under the above.

In the same purport, the court below is just to determine that the plaintiffs are workers subject to the Labor Standards Act in relation to the defendant, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or omission of judgment as alleged in the lawsuit.

In addition, it is pointed out that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Class A income tax is withheld on the money and valuables paid to workers. However, the existence of incidental wage income tax, etc. can be one of the materials to determine whether the wage is paid or not. Therefore, the court below's decision on whether the Plaintiffs' wage is paid on the grounds of withholding the incidental wage income tax along with other reasons is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on wages as remuneration for work. Even if a labor contract is concluded for not less than one year, it is interpreted that the labor contract is not null and void as a labor contract with a one-year contract term, not a one-year contract, and the subsequent labor relationship is recognized as a labor contract with a one-year contract term, and it shall not be deemed null and void as it goes against Article 21 of the Labor Standards Act, and therefore, it does not conflict with the above provision of the law.

2. Under Article 53 or 54 of the Private School Act, the Private School Teachers Pension Act shall apply only to the Private School Teachers’ Pension Act and the provisions on retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act shall be excluded with respect to the teachers whose appointment was approved by the supervisory authority or whose appointment was reported to the supervisory authority under Article 70-2 of the Private School Act. However, the Labor Standards Act shall still apply to other employees. However, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the application of the Labor Standards Act on retirement allowances in any case is excluded from the Private School Teachers’ Pension Act on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the other employees are subject to the Private School Teachers’ Pension Act, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal intent

In short, the appeal that there is an error of misunderstanding legal principles in the judgment of the court below on the premise that only a teacher and a staff member of a private school is a private school cannot be employed as an independent opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the party against whom the appeal is filed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)