Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Worker status as the gate to industrial accident insurance benefits
Supreme Court, Nov. 28, 2019, 2019Du50168 (judgment)
Case name: 요양승인처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is a person's entitlement to insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act decided by whether that person is a worker under the Labour Standards Act, and how is the dependent relationship needed for that status established?
Holding
In principle it is. Article 5(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act defines the workers who may receive benefits as 'workers under the Labour Standards Act', apart from the special provisions on specially-formed workers in Article 125. Whether such a worker exists is decided by the substance rather than the contractual form, so the question is whether labour was provided to the employer for wages in a dependent relationship, judged by weighing together the economic and social conditions the Court listed; and because work rules, a fixed wage, withholding of income tax and recognition as a worker under other social security laws lie largely within the employer's power to set at will, their absence does not by itself show that no worker status exists.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
근로기준법에 따른 근로자에 해당하는지는 계약의 형식이 고용계약인지 도급계약인지보다 실질이 근로자가 사용자에 대한 종속적 관계에서 임금을 목적으로 사용자에게 근로를 제공하였는지에 따라 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether one falls under an employee under the Labor Standards Act must be determined not by whether the form of the contract is a contract of employment or a contract for work, but by whether the substance is that the employee provided labor to the employer for the purpose of wages in a subordinate relationship to the employer.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 보조참가로 인한 부분을 포함하여 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of appeal, including the portion arising from the auxiliary intervention.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
사회보장제도에 관한 법령에서 근로자로 인정되는지 등 경제적·사회적 여러 조건을 종합하여 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
A determination must be made by comprehensively considering whether one is recognized as an employee under statutes concerning social security systems and various economic and social conditions.
Factors
- 업무 내용을 사용자가 정하고 취업규칙 또는 복무(인사)규정 등이 적용되며 업무 수행 과정에서 사용자가 지휘·감독을 하는지
- 사용자가 근무 시간·장소를 지정하고 근로자가 이에 구속되는지
- 노무제공자가 스스로 비품·원자재나 작업 도구를 소유하거나 제3자를 고용하여 업무를 대행하도록 하는 등 독립하여 자신의 계산으로 사업을 영위할 수 있는지
- 노무 제공을 통해 스스로 이윤을 창출하거나 손실 등 위험을 부담하는지
- 근로 제공 관계의 계속성과 사용자에 대한 전속성의 유무와 정도
Unofficial English translation
• Whether the employer determines the content of work, whether rules of employment or rules of service (personnel) regulations, etc. are applied, and whether the employer gives direction and supervision in the course of performing the work
• Whether the employer designates the hours and place of work and the employee is bound thereby
• Whether the person providing labor owns the supplies, raw materials, or work tools himself or herself, or employs a third party to perform the work on his or her behalf, or otherwise independently conducts business on his or her own account
• Whether the person providing labor generates profits on his or her own through the provision of labor or bears the risk of losses, etc.
• The continuity of the labor-provision relationship and the presence and degree of exclusivity to the employer
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2015두51460 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Du51460 decided October 25, 2018
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1999. 2. 24. 선고 98두2201 판결(공1999상, 576), 대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2015두51460 판결 / [2] 대법원 2006. 12. 7. 선고 2004다29736 판결(공2007상, 104), 대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2015두51460 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a service provider may hire substitutes and serve several principals at once, at what point does the dependent relationship cease to exist?
A later decision that revises the criteria for a worker under Article 2(1)(i) of the Labour Standards Act, or an amendment to Article 5(2) or Article 125 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, would require this entry to be read again. So would new record material on substitution, independent solicitation or exclusive service to several principals.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a service provider may hire substitutes and serve several principals at once, at what point does the dependent relationship cease to exist?” vs Independent “How should conflicting indicators of subordination and independent business activity be weighted in a borderline case?”
The primary asks where dependence ends once substitutes and multiple principals are allowed, while the independent asks how conflicting indicators should be weighted in borderline cases.
근로기준법에 따른 근로자에 해당하는지는 계약의 형식이 고용계약인지 도급계약인지보다 실질이 근로자가 사용자에 대한 종속적 관계에서 임금을 목적으로 사용자에게 근로를 제공하였는지에 따라 판단하여야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The reasons do not reproduce the judgment below in its own words. They record that the Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 24 July 2019 (2018Nu77977), reached the same conclusion, and they set out the facts found below and from the lawfully admitted evidence: the applicant began work from around 24 March 2015 as a service engineer of the plaintiff, performing installation and after-sales maintenance of SkyLife products, and the dispute was whether that person was a worker under the Labour Standards Act who could receive benefits.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It examined the facts taken from the reasons of the judgment below and the lawfully admitted evidence: the plaintiff assigned work by handheld device from around 8 am and evaluated it, provided technical training and business cards, and although the engineer did not commute to a fixed workplace, the engineer was bound by the time and place the plaintiff set, since the day began with the first customer visit around 9 am and, because A/S requests were received until 6 pm, ended at least after 6 pm; the plaintiff supplied the expensive equipment free of charge and barred the use of substitutes. On that record it held the engineer to be a worker under the Labour Standards Act who could receive benefits, and said the absence of work rules, a specific fixed wage, income tax withholding and recognition under other social security laws could not negate worker status, since the employer could arrange all of those at will. The Justices unanimously dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A person whose status as a worker entitled to benefits follows from the special provisions on specially-formed workers in Article 125 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which Article 5(2) leaves outside the definition.
- A labour provider who can hire third parties in place of performing the assigned work, or who independently carries on business on his or her own account and bears profit and loss, so that the substance shows no dependent relationship.
- A labour provider who does not provide labour to the employer for wages, since the test the Court stated requires labour given for wages in a dependent relationship.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, assemble the file on who assigns and evaluates the work, who sets the region and hours, who owns the essential equipment, whether a substitute may be hired and whether the person may reach customers without the principal. Weigh those items together with the nature of the remuneration, continuity and exclusivity of the arrangement, rather than deciding the matter on the absence of work rules, a fixed wage or tax withholding, since the employer has a large room to set those conditions at will and they do not alone negate worker status. Note also that the costs of the appeal here fell on the plaintiff, including the part caused by the intervention.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 산업재해보상보험법상 보험급여 대상자인 근로자는 ‘근로기준법에 따른 근로자’에 해당하는지에 따라 결정되는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [2] 근로기준법에 따른 근로자에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 및 이때 종속적인 관계가 있는지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a worker who is an insured person for insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is determined by whether he or she falls under 'an employee under the Labor Standards Act' (affirmative as a rule) / [2] The criteria for determining whether one falls under an employee under the Labor Standards Act and the method for determining whether there is a subordinate relationship at that time
Summary of the holding
[1] 산업재해보상보험법은 이 법에 따라 보험급여를 받을 수 있는 근로자에 대하여 제125조가 정한 특수형태근로종사자에 대한 특례 등을 제외하고는 ‘근로기준법에 따른 근로자’를 말한다고 정하고 있다(제5조 제2호 본문). 따라서 보험급여 대상자인 근로자는 원칙적으로 ‘근로기준법에 따른 근로자’에 해당하는지에 따라 결정된다. [2] 근로기준법에 따른 근로자에 해당하는지는 계약의 형식이 고용계약인지 도급계약인지보다 실질이 근로자가 사용자에 대한 종속적 관계에서 임금을 목적으로 사용자에게 근로를 제공하였는지에 따라 판단하여야 한다. 여기에서 종속적인 관계가 있는지는 업무 내용을 사용자가 정하고 취업규칙 또는 복무(인사)규정 등이 적용되며 업무 수행 과정에서 사용자가 지휘·감독을 하는지, 사용자가 근무 시간·장소를 지정하고 근로자가 이에 구속되는지, 노무제공자가 스스로 비품·원자재나 작업 도구를 소유하거나 제3자를 고용하여 업무를 대행하도록 하는 등 독립하여 자신의 계산으로 사업을 영위할 수 있는지, 노무 제공을 통해 스스로 이윤을 창출하거나 손실 등 위험을 부담하는지, 보수의 성격이 근로 자체의 대상적 성격인지, 기본급이나 고정급이 정해져 있는지, 근로소득세를 원천징수하는지 등 보수에 관한 사항, 근로 제공 관계의 계속성과 사용자에 대한 전속성의 유무와 정도, 사회보장제도에 관한 법령에서 근로자로 인정되는지 등 경제적·사회적 여러 조건을 종합하여 판단하여야 한다. 다만 사용자가 정한 취업규칙 또는 복무(인사)규정 등이 적용되는지, 기본급이나 고정급이 정해져 있는지, 근로소득세를 원천징수하는지, 사회보장제도에 관하여 근로자로 인정되는지 등의 사정은 사용자가 경제적으로 우월한 지위를 이용하여 임의로 정할 여지가 크기 때문에, 그러한 점들이 인정되지 않는다고 해서 그것만으로 근로자가 아니라고 쉽게 단정해서는 안 된다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 보조참가로 인한 부분을 포함하여 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of appeal, including the portion arising from the auxiliary intervention.
Provisions referred to
[1] 산업재해보상보험법 제5조 제2호 [2] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제1호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger