2018Gudan57660 Revocation of Disposition of Non-approval for Medical Care

A person shall be appointed.

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

July 6, 2018

July 20, 2018

1. On July 26, 2017, the Defendant revoked the disposition of the payment of the site for medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff worked as an employee of an agricultural company 000 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) and applied for medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered from the alley-lele, damage to the left-hand left-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-lad-lad-lad-laun

B. However, on July 26, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff as a land owner does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act, the Defendant rendered a disposition of medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefit site pay (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Recognition 1) Persons in charge of delivery in the non-party company are classified into the following three categories:

Category 1: A person who enters into an employment contract with a non-party company and takes charge of delivery duties with a vehicle in the name of the non-party company (Jo, Kim 00, Qo)

Category 2: A person who enters into an employment contract with a non-party company and takes charge of delivery affairs with a vehicle under his/her own name (Oo)

○ Type 3: A person who enters into an agreement on the management and operation of a branch office with the non-party company and takes charge of delivery affairs (the person who falls under the category 3) immediately leaves the place without having to return to the non-party company when he/she completes delivery affairs, and is not in charge of delivery affairs other than the affairs, and is not covered by industrial accident insurance; however, the person who falls under the category 1 and 2 is not covered by industrial accident insurance but has returned to the non-party company after completing delivery affairs because the period of his/her retirement has been set, and is in charge of affairs other than delivery affairs, and is also covered by industrial accident insurance. 2) The plaintiff has been in charge of delivery affairs from December 28, 2015 to December 27, 2016 by the non-party company as an employee (type 1).

3 ) 원고는 2017. 3. 1. 부터 소외 회사에서 주로 배송업무를 하였는데, 배송업무가 끝난 후 소외 회사로 복귀하였고, 소외 회사의 전무 ◆◆◆의 지시에 따라 박스 포장 , 금속검출, 창고정리 등의 업무도 처리하였으며, 그에 따라 기본급과 별도로 시간 외 수당을 받았다. 또한, 원고는 제3유형에 속한 사람들과 달리 소외 회사로부터 법인카드를 받아 식사비를 결제하였다 .

4) The Plaintiff initially had a vehicle under his own name and intended to carry out the delivery business of the non-party company (type 2). The Plaintiff failed to prepare a labor contract by failing to transfer the name of the vehicle to the Plaintiff when the non-party company begins to carry out delivery business.

인정 근거 】 갑 제7 내지 31호증의 각 기재, 을 제1호증의 일부 기재, 증인 ◆◆◆의 증언, 변론 전체의 취지

【Dismissal of Evidence】 Partial description of No. 1

B. Determination

Whether the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is a worker under the Labor Standards Act, which is the object of protection, should be determined according to whether the form of contract is an employment contract or a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages in the business or workplace.

이 사건으로 돌아와 보건대, 위 인정 사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 원고는 종전에 소외 회사에서 소외 회사 소유 명의의 차량으로 배송업무를 담당한 적이 있었고 ( 제1유형 ), 2017. 3. 1. 부터 다시 소외 회사에서 배송업무를 맡으면서 자신 소유 명의의 차량을 제공하기로 한 것 이외에는 종전과 같은 형태와 내용의 업무를 처리할 의사를 가졌고, 소외 회사 역시 마찬가지였던 것으로 보이는 점, ② 실제로 원고는 소외 회사에서 전무 ◆◆◆의 지시를 받아 배송업무 이외에 박스 포장, 금속검출, 창고정리 등의 업무도 처리하였고, 배송업무를 마친 후 곧바로 퇴근하지 않고 소외 회사로 복귀했던 것으로 보이는데, 이는 순수한 지입계약을 체결하고 배송업무만을 담당하였던 사람 ( 제3유형 ) 과는 명백히 다른 점, ③ 원고가 소외 회사와 근로계약서를 작성하지 못한 것은 원고가 제공하기로 한 차량의 소유 명의를 원고 앞으로 이전하지 못하였기 때문인 점, ④ 원고와 소외 회사가 지입차량 관리 및 운용계약을 체결하지 않은 점 등 그 밖의 여러 제반 사정에 비추어 볼 때, 원고는 소외 회사에서 배송업무를 담당하던 근로자로서 산업재해보상보험법의 보호 대상이라고 봄이 타당하고, 을 제2호증의 기재, 을 제1호증의 일부 기재만으로는 위 인정을 뒤집기에 부족하며, 달리 반증이 없다 .

Therefore, the instant disposition issued on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-won