[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Republic of Korea
[Lower Court Judgment] Seoul High Court Decision 91Na10857 rendered on June 12, 1991
[Order]
The lower court judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the lower court judgment, in this case where the Plaintiffs sought payment of retirement allowances on the ground that they were workers as defined under the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), the lower court held as follows: considering the form of the Plaintiffs' work (the fact that, as a result of being required to work at a fixed place of work for fixed working hours every day under the specific and individual direction and supervision of the department head to whom they belonged, their provision of labor was not carried out independently according to their own will, but was carried out in a subordinate manner in accordance with the direction and command of the department head to whom they belonged); the content of the remuneration the Plaintiffs received from the Defendant (the fact that it was not paid according to the degree of achievement of the assigned task, but rather that, simply by virtue of their status as research officers appointed upon meeting the prescribed qualifications, they were scheduled to receive a fixed monthly amount as a matter of course as consideration for the prescribed research activities, and that in determining the consideration for the labor provided by the Plaintiffs, the amount of remuneration was not determined according to the quality or quantity of the assigned task corresponding to the outcome of the labor provided, but rather the fixed monthly amount was determined by taking into account the level of remuneration corresponding to the rank held at the time of retirement from military service); and the treatment and responsibility in terms of status (the fact that the Defendant, for its part, received reports on the Plaintiffs' implementation plans regarding their assigned tasks at the beginning of each year, and thereafter controlled and supervised the Plaintiffs' research activities through periodic reports on and inspection of the progress thereof, while, in consideration of the Plaintiffs' direction as providers of subordinate labor, granting them status guarantees and various welfare benefits similar to those of soldiers or military civilian employees) — the lower court held that, in light of the above, although the contract possesses many of the substantive characteristics of an employment contract, this is merely a special contractual condition naturally required by the nature of the work under the service contract at issue in this case, and that since the basis for concluding the contract is a contract for work (service) under the Budget and Accounts Act (예산회계법), it cannot be regarded as an employment contract; accordingly, the lower court held that the Plaintiffs' claim in this case, based on the assertion that they were workers as defined under the Labor Standards Act, was without merit.
However, regardless of whether the contract is an employment contract or a contract for work under the Civil Act, and regardless of the form of the contract, if in substance a worker provided labor to an employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages, such person constitutes a worker as defined under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, and such worker may claim payment of a retirement allowance pursuant to Article 28 of the same Act, which provides for the retirement allowance system (see this Court's Decision 90Da20251 rendered on July 26, 1991).
According to the substantive relationship of the Plaintiffs' labor as found by the lower court based on the evidence it adopted, it is clear that the Plaintiffs provided labor to the Defendant, their employer, in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages, and thus they constitute workers as defined under Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act; accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act.
The lower court's determination that the Plaintiffs were not workers as defined under the Labor Standards Act, based on its adherence to the form of the academic service contract, constitutes an unlawful act affecting the judgment due to a misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding workers; therefore, the argument pointing this out has merit.
Accordingly, the lower court judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court, and it is so decided by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices as set forth in the Order.
Justice Park Man-ho (Presiding Justice), Park Woo-dong, Kim Sang-won, Yoon Young-chul