[Plaintiffs, Appellees] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Plaintiffs' Attorneys Yoon Jae-ki and 1 other
[Defendant, Appellant] Republic of Korea
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 90Na45283 delivered on November 30, 1990
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning] As to the Grounds of Appeal by the Defendant's Litigation Performer
The court below, citing the judgment of the first instance, found that although the service contract concluded between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant formally bore the appearance of a labor subcontracting contract, in substance, with respect to the Plaintiffs providing labor to the Defendant under that contract, the Plaintiffs provided labor within a fixed workplace and fixed working hours under the specific and individual direction and supervision of the Defendant, and the Plaintiffs also performed separate duties in accordance with the Defendant's instructions in addition to the duties stipulated in the service contract. Having recognized these facts, the court below determined that the Defendant, on the basis of an employment relationship subject to the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), to which the Plaintiffs provided dependent labor, is obligated to pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiffs in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
Regardless of whether the labor contract takes the form of an employment contract or a subcontracting contract under the Civil Act (민법), if, in substance, the worker provides labor to the employer in a dependent relationship, such worker shall be deemed a "worker" as prescribed in Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, and such a worker may claim payment of retirement allowance pursuant to Article 28 of the same Act, which provides for the retirement allowance system.
According to the above factual relationship lawfully established by the court below, it is clear that the Plaintiffs provided labor in a dependent relationship, and therefore they constitute "workers" as prescribed in Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act; accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said retirement allowance to the Plaintiffs.
It cannot be said that the judgment below is illegal on the grounds of misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the Labor Standards Act as argued in the grounds of appeal. The argument is without merit.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party, and this judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Presiding Justice Kim Sang-won, Justice Park Woo-dong, Justice Bae Seok, Justice Yoon Young-cheol