[Plaintiffs, Appellees] Kim Pan-seok and 16 others; Attorneys for the plaintiffs: Samdeok Law Firm, Attorneys Jeong Si-yeong and 2 others
[Defendant, Appellant] Inje Educational Foundation (학교법인 인제학원); Attorneys for the defendant: Attorney Lee Yeong-su and 1 other
[Lower Court Judgment] Daegu High Court Judgment 86Na1561, dated June 16, 1988
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on undisputed facts and the evidence cited, as follows: the Plaintiffs worked as resident physicians (interns or residents) at Busan Baik Hospital of Inje Medical College, which is established and operated by the Defendant foundation, and then left their positions; during the period the Plaintiffs worked there, the said hospital was a place of business regularly employing 16 or more workers, and even before the Plaintiffs began working there, it had been designated by the Minister of Health and Social Affairs as a medical institution for training resident physicians, i.e., a training hospital, pursuant to the Regulation on Training and Qualification Recognition of Specialists (전문의의수련및자격인정에관한규정) and its Enforcement Rules; the Plaintiffs, all of whom held medical licenses, applied for and passed the open competitive examination conducted by the head of the said hospital for the recruitment of resident physicians to be trained at the hospital, in order to complete the training course required to obtain eligibility to sit the specialist examination, and were then appointed as resident physicians of the said hospital; they completed the curriculum set forth in the Annual Training Curriculum for Resident Physicians under Ministry of Health and Social Affairs Notification No. 9 (amended by Notification No. 84-6 on January 14, 1984); interns typically remained on standby at the hospital for 24 hours, while residents typically arrived at work at approximately 07:00 and left at approximately 19:00, and performed night duty on average about twice a week; during daytime duty they performed medical acts such as treatment, examination, prescription, surgery, and issuance of medical certificates for patients under the direction and supervision of specialists, in accordance with the treatment plan established by the hospital, while during night duty they performed such medical acts based on their own independent judgment; the said hospital had approximately 700 beds, and excluding outpatients, the average number of inpatients alone was approximately 650, such that specialists alone, without interns or residents, could not handle the treatment of inpatients and outpatients, and the hospital had established its treatment plans on the premise that approximately 180 resident physicians, employed within the quota set by the Minister of Health and Social Affairs, would treat patients; while working as resident physicians at the said hospital, the Plaintiffs did not pay any tuition or similar fees for their training, but rather received regular monthly payments from the Defendant, including basic salary, research allowance, night duty allowance, adjustment allowance, scholarship allowance, and monthly allowance, and paid Class A wage and salary income tax (갑종근로소득세) thereon; during the period the Plaintiffs worked as resident physicians at the said hospital, they were prohibited under the said Regulation from establishing a medical institution or holding any other concurrent position, and were required to be under the direction and supervision of the head of the said hospital, and could be dismissed by the head of the said hospital if found unsuitable for training. These factual findings can be affirmed in light of the record and the relationship with the evidence cited in the judgment below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as argued in the grounds of appeal in the process of making these findings.
As determined by the court below, the Plaintiffs, who held medical licenses, were appointed as resident physicians at the said hospital in order to complete the training course required to obtain eligibility to sit the specialist examination; interns typically remained on standby at the hospital for 24 hours, while residents typically arrived at work at 07:00 and left at 19:00, performing night duty on average twice a week, and in accordance with the treatment plan established by the said hospital, performed medical acts such as treatment, examination, prescription, and surgery for patients under the direction and supervision of specialists during daytime duty, and based on their own independent judgment during night duty; and if they received regular monthly payments from the Defendant, including basic salary, research allowance, night duty allowance, scholarship allowance, and adjustment allowance, then even though the labor provided by the Plaintiffs was labor provided in the course of the training course essential to obtaining eligibility for the specialist examination, considering the facts set forth above and other circumstances found by the court below, the Plaintiffs' status vis-à-vis the Defendant should be regarded as having both the status of trainees undergoing training, including patient treatment as prescribed in the curriculum, as resident physicians, and simultaneously the status of workers who provided labor in accordance with the treatment plan established by the hospital and received wages in return; and since the Plaintiffs provided labor under the direction and supervision of the hospital, there exists a substantive relationship of employment and subordination between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant; therefore, it must be interpreted that the Plaintiffs, in their relationship with the Defendant, constitute workers as defined in Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법).
The court below's determination, in the same vein, that the Plaintiffs were workers subject to the application of the Labor Standards Act in their relationship with the Defendant, is justified, and there is no error of misapprehension of the law or omission of judgment as argued in the grounds of appeal.
Furthermore, as pointed out in the grounds of appeal, the fact that Class A wage and salary income tax is withheld on money paid to a worker does not necessarily establish that such money constitutes wages; however, the withholding or non-withholding of wage and salary income tax, etc., may incidentally serve as one piece of material evidence in determining whether such payment has the character of wages. Accordingly, the court below's determination as to whether the Plaintiffs' income had the character of wages, based incidentally, along with other grounds, on the fact of withholding of wage and salary income tax, is justified, and there is no error of misapprehension of the legal principles regarding wages as consideration for labor. Moreover, even where an employment contract for a term of one year or more is concluded, such employment contract does not automatically become void, but is to be recognized as an employment contract with a term of one year, and thereafter, absent special circumstances, the employment relationship is to be regarded as one without a fixed term. Accordingly, the fact that the training period was set at three to four years does not conflict with Article 21 of the Labor Standards Act so as to render the contract automatically void; therefore, the said statutory provision does not conflict with the recognition of the Plaintiffs' status as workers.
2. Teachers whose appointment has been approved by, or reported to, the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 53 or Article 54 of the Private School Act (사립학교법), and administrative staff appointed pursuant to Article 70-2 of the Private School Act, are subject only to the Private School Teachers' Pension Act (사립학교교원연금법), and the provisions of the Labor Standards Act concerning retirement allowances are excluded as to them; however, the Labor Standards Act still applies to other staff members. The court below's rejection of the Defendant's argument that the application of the Labor Standards Act's provisions on retirement allowances is excluded in every case for private school juristic persons, on the ground that there is no material to show that the Plaintiffs fall under teaching staff subject to the Private School Teachers' Pension Act, is justified, and there is no error of misunderstanding the parties' arguments or the legislative purpose of the Private School Act.
In sum, the grounds of appeal, premised on the view that the only employees of a private school are teachers and administrative staff, and arguing that the judgment below erred in its understanding of the law on that basis, present merely an independent view that cannot be adopted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Defendant [Note: original text says "피소자" which appears to be a typographical error for "피고" (Defendant)]. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the decision.
Justice Yoon Kwan (Presiding Justice), Justice Kim Deok-ju, Justice Bae Man-un, Justice Ahn Woo-man