(a) Profits of lawsuits seeking the closure of the workplace and the cancellation of the decision on reexamination after the trial court on relief from an unfair dismissal;

(b) The case holding that it cannot be deemed that a worker under the Labor Standards Act was provided with labor under a subordinate relationship since the amount of contribution by an entertainment business establishment is not provided with labor in the place, time and place, but with remuneration for it is not paid as the price for labor; and

A. Regarding a disposition of dismissal taken by an employer as unfair dismissal, the obligation to pay an amount equivalent to the wages for the period from the date following the date of dismissal to the date of closure of the place of business for which implementation of the order of reinstatement was possible is retroactively not retroactively extinguished even though the place of business is closed after the reexamination of the Labor Relations Commission on the order of remedy issued by the Labor Relations Commission to restore the dismissed worker to his/her original position and order the payment of an amount equivalent to the wages during the period of dismissal. Thus, the employer bears the obligation under the public law in accordance with the Labor Relations Commission’s decision, including the above order of payment equivalent to the wages. Thus

(b) The case holding that a person cannot be deemed to have provided labor under a subordinate relationship because the amount of contribution to an entertainment business is not provided with labor in the place, time, but with remuneration for it is not paid for labor, and thus does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

A. Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13196 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1589). Supreme Court Decision 90Da20251 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 2242) 91Da24250 delivered on December 13, 1991 (Gong192,507)

Plaintiff

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu35099 delivered on June 24, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In regard to a disposition of dismissal taken by an employer as unfair dismissal, the obligation to pay the amount equivalent to the wages for the period from the date of dismissal to the date of closure of the place of business for which implementation of the order of reinstatement was possible, even after the reexamination of the Labor Relations Commission on the order of remedy for the amount equivalent to the wages during the period of dismissal, is not retroactively extinguished. As such, the employer is in a state where the Labor Relations Commission is obligated to comply with the order of payment of the amount equivalent to the above wages in public law, including the order of payment of the amount equivalent to the above wages. Thus, in order to discharge the obligation, there is a legal interest to seek the cancellation of the above order of reexamination (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13196, Apr. 27, 1

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no legal interest in dispute over the validity of dismissal of the non-party ○○ (the non-party) who was an employee of the above business after the retrial decision of this case, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal interpretation of the provisions of Articles 27 and 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 44 of the Trade Union Act, and Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act. The argument is without merit.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: on November 12, 1990, the plaintiff entered into a contribution contract with the non-party on November 12, 1990, and allowed the non-party to make a contribution to the non-party as a free income from the date when the plaintiff operated. The plaintiff determined only the time of performance and the remuneration to the non-party, and the non-party did not participate in the contract. The non-party was 19:30 to 20:00, 21:30 to 22:00, and 30,000 won per day, and the plaintiff was paid 6-8 members of the music group and the non-party, etc. to whom the non-party had been employed as a free income from the contract with the non-party, and that the non-party's provision on the non-party's employment contract cannot be applied to the non-party's non-party's non-party's employment.

Whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act is determined by whether the form of employment is determined by whether the labor has been provided while maintaining a subordinate relationship with the employer, and it is not determined by the type of employment contract, contract, etc.

However, if the facts are found by the court below, the non-party is not deemed to have been directed and supervised by the plaintiff with respect to his duties or duties, and the non-party's place of provision of labor alone cannot be deemed to have provided labor under the temporary detention of the plaintiff. The non-party cannot be deemed to have provided labor under the temporary detention of the non-party because it was extremely shorter than the ordinary working hours of ordinary workers, and the non-party did not appear to have been subjected to temporary detention of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the non-party cannot be deemed to have provided labor under the temporary detention of the non-party because the non-party did not appear to have been subjected to temporary detention of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the non-party's remuneration for the non-party is deemed to have been paid for his labor, considering these circumstances, since the non-party cannot be deemed to have provided labor

If the non-party is absent from office, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's consent was obtained, and that the plaintiff ordered the non-party to give a good quality of singing, etc. In light of the actual condition of the non-party's provision of labor, the non-party cannot be deemed to have provided labor under a subordinate relationship only by the fact that the non-party was directly paid remuneration from the plaintiff or contributed to the plaintiff's business without having contributed to another business. Therefore, the non-party did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to workers under the Labor Standards Act, such as the non-party's theory, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to workers under the Labor Standards Act. There is no ground for discussion.

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.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)