Whether the major of a public hospital constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act (affirmative)

In a case where the medical doctor of a public hospital, along with the educational status of the patient under which he/she takes the training as prescribed in the curriculum, has the status of worker who provided labor and received wages in return for the provision of labor in accordance with the medical treatment plan as determined by the hospital, and where there was a substantial subordinate relationship with the hospital by providing labor under the direction and supervision of the hospital, the medical doctor shall be deemed as a worker under Article 14 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) in relation to the hospital. This also applies to the case where the medical doctor is not a public official appointed by the qualification and appointment procedure of the public official as determined by the Local Public Officials Act, or where he/she provided the medical doctor with self-regulation without performing his/her duties for the last six months during the training period for the medical doctor.

Articles 14 (see current Article 14) and 28 (see current Article 34) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309, Mar. 13, 1997)

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu21296 Decided July 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1222), Supreme Court Decision 91Da27730 Decided November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 80), Supreme Court Decision 95Da28731 Decided February 9, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 915)

Plaintiff 1 and 14 others (Law Firm New Korea General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Jong-making, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na16529 delivered on November 18, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the plaintiffs are employed as a medical specialist in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○ Hospital through a written examination, etc., and are subject to comprehensive guidance and supervision by the Korean Medical Association and its affiliated academic societies pursuant to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s notification, while complying with all regulations and policies under the above hospital’s major training regulations, and have the patient treated, treated, and worked on medical treatment in accordance with the hospital’s plan or the director in charge, and received a certain amount of wages and working allowances every month. Meanwhile, the above hospital provided that the plaintiffs may take disciplinary action, such as dismissal, suspension of duty, reduction of salary, reprimand, and reprimand, if there are certain reasons for not complying with the hospital’s regulations or considerably poor working conditions. According to the above facts-related regulations and all circumstances, the plaintiffs were not a public official in charge of the training of patients under the above hospital’s instruction and supervision as well as a public official in accordance with the above hospital’s training plan, and thus, the plaintiffs were not in violation of the legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below 17th of the above.

As above, as long as the plaintiffs are workers under the Labor Standards Act, they are obligated to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiffs under Article 28 of the same Act, and they cannot refuse to pay retirement allowances on the grounds that there are no legal grounds to pay the above retirement allowances from the defendant's budget. Therefore, the grounds of appeal disputing this point are without merit.

In addition, the phrase that the plaintiffs agreed not to receive retirement allowances between the defendant and the defendant does not constitute a new argument that does not reach the original judgment, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)