The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

F and E, even though the Defendant was not a worker of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), but a joint manager, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the part of the facts charged regarding F and E’s payment of wages.

Judgment

In determining whether a contract constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, regardless of whether the contract is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for work, or in substance, whether a worker provides labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in the business or workplace. Determination of whether a subordinate relationship exists shall be made based on whether the contents of the work are determined by the employer, whether the worker is subject to the rules of employment, employment rules, employment regulations, personnel regulations, etc., whether the worker is specifically and directly directed and supervised by the employer in the course of performing his/her duties, whether the work hours and place of work are designated by the employer and are detained by the employer, whether the worker is replaced by his/her work, whether the worker owns materials, raw materials, working tools, etc., whether the remuneration has the characteristic of the work itself, whether the basic salary or fixed wage has the nature of the work itself, whether the wage has the nature of the wage, whether the wage has the continuity and the exclusive nature of the labor relations, whether the status of an employee is recognized by the parties, economic and social conditions of the two parties, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Du524 delivered on May 27, 2005, see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du524 delivered on May 27, 2005).