The case holding that a business owner, who is a parent company, has a direct employment relationship between the business owner and his employees, even though he employed the employees of the subsidiary company in the form of a business contract.

The case holding that a business owner, who is a parent company, has a direct employment relationship between the business owner and the workers while employed the workers of the subsidiary company in the form of a business contract.

Articles 14, 15, and 17 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1530 Decided July 10, 1979 (Gong1979, 12096) Supreme Court Decision 99Ma628 Decided July 12, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 1924) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu19946 Decided November 12, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2525), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do649 Decided November 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 273)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Name, Attorneys Yoon Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

E. S. Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Hong Sk-moo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu2521 delivered on March 14, 2003

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

1. Comprehensively taking into account the evidence of its employment, the lower court determined that the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s company (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor’s Intervenor”) concluded the contract renewal since around August 1997, after entering into the contract for work with Indian Site Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “NE”) and had 140 employees working at the Intervenor’s 11 logistics center located across the country, including the Plaintiffs, on the part of the Intervenor’s 11 employees working at the 140 website Korea. Under the above contract for work, the agent’s on-site Korea must appoint a field agent to directly manage and direct the employees he employs, and even though the Intervenor’s instructions on the performance of the contract were not directly performed by the employees who are not the on-site agent, the Intervenor’s agent did not pass through the on-site Korea’s on-site agent, on-the-job implementation, official commendation, and approval for use, etc., and that the Intervenor’s genuine operation of the contract was almost 10% of the Intervenor’s shares.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or contract for work due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing as alleged in the

2. According to the facts duly established by the court below and the records, the web site Korea has been operated as an independent corporation in the form of the intervenor's subsidiary, but in substance, the intervenor exercised the right to decide on the management, such as one division of the intervenor's company. When the number of workers to work at the distribution center is required, the intervenor recruited the target by means of employment advertisement, etc., and the director of the distribution center and the director of the management division of the intervenor, etc. from the interview process conducted in the presence of the plaintiff's director, and the worker sent by the online site Korea including the plaintiffs did not distinguish the plaintiffs from the intervenor's regular employees, but did not directly conduct all personnel management, such as business instructions, job training, official commendation, official commendation, and approval for the use of leave, etc., and did not have any difference in the organization of the organization and safety environment inspection team, and it can be seen that the intervenor directly assessed the worker's ability to perform his duties and the level of wages are linked to the intervenor's regular employees. In full view of these circumstances, the intervenor's employment relationship between the intervenor and the intervenor's directly used the plaintiffs's labor contract.

Therefore, it would be unfair that the intervenor's refusal to receive the plaintiffs' labor provision on November 1, 200 by the reason that the plaintiffs did not consent to the recruitment of the plaintiffs in the form of a contract-based worker.

3. The court below held that since the intervenor used the plaintiffs as temporary agency workers for more than two years after July 1, 1998 when the Act on the Temporary Agency Workers came into force as of July 1, 1998, the intervenor is deemed to employ the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 6 (3) of the Act on the Temporary Agency Workers, and the above interpretation does not change depending on whether the plaintiffs' work in charge constitutes permission for temporary agency workers under Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Temporary Agency Workers. The "temporary agency worker dispatch" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act is applied to temporary agency workers after a temporary work agency hires workers and under the direction and order of the user company in accordance with the terms of the temporary agency contract while maintaining the employment relationship, it is not appropriate for the court below's decision that the plaintiff's employment relationship with the intervenor was established under the premise that the temporary agency worker dispatch contract exists under the Act on the Temporary Agency Workers, and thus, it does not affect the judgment below that the plaintiff's employment relationship with the intervenor was established under Article 6 (3) of the Act.

4. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)