A. The legislative intent and the nature of the provision on restrictions on employment of foreigners under Article 15(1) and (2) of the former Immigration Control Act

B. The validity of an employment contract concluded in violation of the provisions on the restriction on employment of foreigners under the former Immigration Control Act and the nature of the employment relationship accordingly

(c) Whether a foreigner who was injured while providing labor after employment in violation of the provisions of restrictions on employment of foreigners under the former Immigration Control Act is eligible to receive medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

A. Article 15(1) of the former Immigration Control Act (amended by Act No. 4522 of Dec. 8, 192) regulates activities that a foreigner may stay in the Republic of Korea, or status or status of sojourn that a foreigner may stay in the Republic of Korea, and the period of such sojourn. In addition, Article 15(2) of the same Act provides that the purpose of legislation is not to simply regulate the illegal stay of a foreigner. The above provision aims at preventing the employment of a foreigner who is not qualified for employment by regulating the qualification of a foreigner in order to resolve the instability in the domestic employment market due to the inflow of a foreigner who is not qualified for employment, efficiently manage labor manpower, and efficiently achieve the purpose of maintaining the working conditions of domestic workers. This also aims to prohibit the actual employment of a foreigner who is not qualified for employment, and further, it is difficult to view that the above provision aims to prohibit the legal effect of the rights due to employment provided by a foreigner who is not qualified for employment, or all labor-related laws, such as labor rights based on the status of the foreigner already formed.

B. Even if an unqualified foreigner entered into an employment contract in violation of the provisions on employment restrictions under the former Immigration Control Act, such employment contract cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course, and the qualification for employment is to enable a foreigner to work legally within the Republic of Korea. Thus, the employment relationship with an unqualified foreigner shall be suspended unless it is already formed in the employment relationship, and the parties may terminate the employment contract at any time on the ground that the foreigner is not

C. Where a foreigner entered into an employment contract with a company which is subject to the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994), and provided labor, and suffered an injury during work, even though the foreigner did not meet the qualification for employment under the former Immigration Control Act, the employment contract cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course. At the time of the above injury, the foreigner was a person who provided labor and received wages in the employment subordinate relationship, and was an employee under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Thus, the foreigner is eligible to receive medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

(a)(b)Articles 15(1) and 15(2)(b) of the former Immigration Control Act; Articles 17 and 14(c) of the Labor Standards Act; Articles 3(2) and 9-3 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

Plaintiff

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu2673 delivered on September 1, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that Article 15 (1) of the former Immigration Control Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4522 of Dec. 8, 1992) or Article 15 (2) of the former Immigration Control Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4522 of Dec. 8, 1992) providing that "No foreigner with no status of sojourn eligible for employment as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall employ any foreigner with no status of sojourn eligible for employment as an industrial training status after entering into an employment contract with the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") and worked as a labor worker in the non-party company at the non-party company around 15:00 on December 15: 192, 1992, where the non-party company suffered an injury such as dives from dives and dives from the working price to be covered by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which provides that the non-party company shall not employ any foreigner with an occupational injury or disease.

2. Article 15(1) of the former Immigration Control Act regulates the status and period of sojourn of a foreigner who is eligible to stay in the Republic of Korea and his/her status and status of sojourn that the foreigner is eligible to stay in the Republic of Korea, and Article 15(2) of the same Act provides that no person shall employ a foreigner who does not have the status of sojourn eligible to engage in employment activities, that is, the status of sojourn eligible to engage in employment activities (hereinafter referred to as "employment eligibility"), as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the restriction on the employment of the foreigner. The legislative intent of the above provision is not simply the purpose of regulating the illegal stay of the foreigner. The above provision also has the legislative purpose of prohibiting the employment of the foreigner who is not eligible to engage in employment, by regulating the employment of the foreigner in order to resolve the instability of the domestic employment market due to the inflow of an unqualified foreigner into

However, even if the foreign employment restriction regulation has such legislative purpose, it is only intended to prohibit the factual act of employment of a foreigner who is not qualified for employment, and furthermore, it is difficult to view the provision to prohibit the legal effect of the right to work provided by a foreigner who is not qualified for employment, or the legal effect of the labor relations law, such as all rights under the labor relations law, as an employee in already formed labor relations.

Therefore, even if a foreigner without employment eligibility concludes an employment contract in violation of the above provisions of the Immigration Control Act, it cannot be said that the employment contract is null and void as a matter of course.

However, since a foreigner's qualification for employment is legally able to engage in employment activities in the Republic of Korea, the employment relationship with a foreigner without qualification for employment should be suspended unless the employment relationship has already been formed, and the parties can terminate the employment contract at any time on the ground that the foreigner has no such qualification for employment.

3. In light of the records, the plaintiff entered the non-party company as a workplace subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and entered into an employment contract with the non-party company, which is a workplace subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as recognized by the court below, and was injured during the work. The plaintiff was under the direction and supervision of the non-party company, and provided labor and received benefits after deducting monthly Class A income tax from the monthly wage. Thus, even if the plaintiff did not have the qualification for employment under the Immigration Control Act, since the above employment contract cannot be seen as null and void as a matter of course, the plaintiff was a worker under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, who provided labor and received wages at the time of the above injury, as long as the above employment contract cannot be seen as null and void as a matter of course.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff can receive medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is just in conclusion, and there is no ground for appeal disputing this.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)