Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Debt collector's status between employment and mandate
Supreme Court, Sept. 29, 2022, 2020Da256385 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 퇴직금청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a debt collector worked at a branch of an asset management company under successive contracts renewed every six months, was he an employee under the Labour Standards Act for the whole period of service, and from when must his collection work be treated as performed under a mandate contract?
Holding
Employee status is decided by the substance of the labour-provision relationship, not the form of the contract, and in an individual case disputing a debt collector's employee status it may be decided differently depending on the concrete facts, such as the form of work at his branch, and the degree of proof. On this record the Supreme Court could not conclude that the plaintiff had been an employee for the whole period: from the point at which the form of work in which the company, as employer, exercised substantial direction and supervision over collectors' work disappeared at his branch, and contracts capable of being viewed as mandate contracts under the revised contract form were concluded and performed, his collection work must be treated as performed under a mandate contract. The Court reversed the part of the judgment below ordering additional payment by the defendant and remanded the case to the Gwangju High Court.
Points at issue, verbatim
을의 근무지사에서 갑 회사가 사용자로서 채권추심원의 업무수행 과정에 상당한 지휘·감독을 하는 업무형태가 사라지고 변경된 계약서 양식에 따라 위임계약으로 볼 수 있는 계약을 체결하고 근무한 때부터는 을이 위임계약에 따라 채권추심업무를 수행한 것으로 보아야 하는데도
Unofficial English translation
at B's branch of employment the working form in which Company A, as the employer, exercised substantial direction and supervision over the process of performing the debt collection agent's duties disappeared, and from the time a contract that could be regarded as a contract of mandate was concluded and worked under the revised contract form, B must be regarded as having performed debt collection work under the mandate contract, yet
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고에게 추가로 지급을 명한 부분을 파기하고 이 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below that ordered additional payment by the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
근로기준법상의 근로자에 해당하는지는 계약의 형식보다 근로제공 관계의 실질이 근로제공자가 사업장에서 임금을 목적으로 종속적인 관계에서 사용자에게 근로를 제공하였는지에 따라 판단하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
Whether a person falls under an employee as defined in the Labor Standards Act must be determined not by the form of the contract, but by whether, in light of the substance of the labor-provision relationship, the labor provider has provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship at the place of business for the purpose of wages
Factors
- 구체적인 사실관계 및 증명의 정도에 따라 달리 판단될 수 있는지 여부(적극)
- 6개월의 계약기간이 만료되면 재계약을 하는 형식으로 갑 회사의 지사에서 채권추심원으로 근무한
- 갑 회사가 사용자로서 채권추심원의 업무수행 과정에 상당한 지휘·감독을 하는 업무형태가 사라지고
- 변경된 계약서 양식에 따라 위임계약으로 볼 수 있는 계약을 체결하고 근무한 때부터는 을이 위임계약에 따라 채권추심업무를 수행한 것으로 보아야 하는데도
- 근무기간 전체에 대하여 종속적인 관계에서 갑 회사에 근로를 제공한 근로자였다고 본 원심판단에 심리미진 등이 잘못이 있다고
Unofficial English translation
• whether it may be determined differently depending on the specific facts and the degree of proof (affirmative)
• worked as a debt collection agent at Company A's branch in the form of renewing the contract when the 6-month contract period expired
• the working form in which Company A, as the employer, exercised substantial direction and supervision over the process of performing the debt collection agent's duties disappeared, and
• from the time a contract that could be regarded as a contract of mandate was concluded and worked under the revised contract form, B must be regarded as having performed debt collection work under the mandate contract, yet
• it is erroneous, for failure to exhaust deliberations and the like, that the court below determined that B was an employee who provided labor to Company A in a subordinate relationship for the entire period of employment
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2006. 12. 7. 선고 2004다29736 판결(공2007상, 104)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29736 decided December 7, 2006 (Gong 2007 Sang, 104)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2006. 12. 7. 선고 2004다29736 판결(공2007상, 104), 대법원 2016. 4. 15. 선고 2015다252891 판결, 대법원 2022. 8. 19. 선고 2020다296819 판결(공2022하, 1871)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
With seven changes to the contract form between March 2008 and November 2010, from which re-contract date does the collector's work first qualify as performance under a mandate contract on these facts?
The judgment the Gwangju High Court delivers on remand, identifying the re-contract date from which mandate status began, will show how the comparison of contract contents and actual work is made. Any amendment to Article 2(1)(i) of the Labour Standards Act, or a later decision treating debt collectors' contracts differently, would require this entry to be read again.
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 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reading treats the standard as a statement of requirements, while the independent reading treats it as application to the facts. The holding field is empty, so the reading depends on how the reasoning and order are weighted.
을이 근무기간 전체에 대하여 종속적인 관계에서 갑 회사에 근로를 제공한 근로자였다고 본 원심판단에 심리미진 등이 잘못이 있다고 한 사례Raw 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 Gwangju High Court, in its judgment of 15 July 2020 (2020Na20066), held that the plaintiff had been the defendant's employee for the whole of his service from around January 2005 to 6 February 2018, and ordered additional payment of retirement allowance for the period after March 2009. It relied on the re-contract criteria the defendant prepared around 2016 to find that the defendant had exercised substantial management and supervision over collectors' work. The first-instance court had found employee status only to 28 February 2009; the plaintiff appealed only the part he lost, the period after March 2009, and the defendant did not appeal the part recognising employee status up to 28 February 2009, so the matter in dispute here was the added period.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had erred in law by misapplying the criteria for employee status under the Labour Standards Act and failing to deliberate as required. The 2016 re-contract criteria could not by themselves show substantial direction and supervision in the performance of the work, because the court had not checked what proportion of all collectors was refused re-contract under those criteria, and the other circumstances it relied on were possible in a mandate relationship or were things the defendant could require of collectors as a mandator. It should have compared in detail the contents of each contract concluded under the changed forms after March 2009 and the substance of the work performed under them against what came before, to decide from when the plaintiff might be evaluated as a mandatary. It therefore reversed the part ordering additional payment and remanded to the Gwangju High Court on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A period in which the company still exercised substantial direction and supervision over collection work at the branch, through a computer system, attendance records, education obligations or designated working hours and place.
- A period governed by a contract form that still barred performance through third parties, required attendance at education, or let the company set the fee standard and terminate the contract, since those clauses were removed only in stages.
- A case in which the concrete facts and the degree of proof at the individual branch of the collector's company establish employee status, since the Court held the answer may differ from case to case.
Record verification notes
Fix for each stretch of the service from January 2005 to February 2018 which contract form applied, and match every piece of supervision evidence to that form and to that branch, because the attendance records, warnings, monthly staff meeting materials and performance reports the plaintiff filed here were all in force before February 2008 or could not be dated or tied to the Gwangju Jeonnam branch. Before relying on the 2016 re-contract criteria to show supervision, gather what proportion of all collectors was refused re-contract under them. Confirm which part was appealed: the first-instance finding of employee status to 28 February 2009 was not appealed and stands.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 근로기준법상의 근로자에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 / 채권추심원의 근로자성이 다투어지는 개별 사건에서 근로자에 해당하는지는 구체적인 사실관계 및 증명의 정도에 따라 달리 판단될 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 갑 자산관리회사와 채권추심업무계약을 체결한 후 6개월의 계약기간이 만료되면 재계약을 하는 형식으로 갑 회사의 지사에서 채권추심원으로 근무한 을이 근로기준법상 근로자에 해당하는지 문제 된 사안에서, 을의 근무지사에서 갑 회사가 사용자로서 채권추심원의 업무수행 과정에 상당한 지휘·감독을 하는 업무형태가 사라지고 변경된 계약서 양식에 따라 위임계약으로 볼 수 있는 계약을 체결하고 근무한 때부터는 을이 위임계약에 따라 채권추심업무를 수행한 것으로 보아야 하는데도, 을이 근무기간 전체에 대하여 종속적인 관계에서 갑 회사에 근로를 제공한 근로자였다고 본 원심판단에 심리미진 등이 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criteria for determining whether a person falls under an employee as defined in the Labor Standards Act / Whether, in an individual case in which the status of a debt collection agent as an employee is disputed, whether the person falls under an employee may be determined differently depending on the specific facts and the degree of proof (affirmative) [2] In a case where the issue was whether B, who worked as a debt collection agent at Company A's branch in the form of renewing the contract when the 6-month contract period expired after concluding a debt collection business contract with Company A, an asset management company, falls under an employee as defined in the Labor Standards Act, an instance in which it was held erroneous, for failure to exhaust deliberations and the like, that the court below held that B was an employee who provided labor to Company A in a subordinate relationship for the entire period of employment, even though at B's branch of employment the working form in which Company A, as the employer, exercised substantial direction and supervision over the process of performing the debt collection agent's duties disappeared, and from the time a contract that could be regarded as a contract of mandate was concluded and worked under the revised contract form, B must be regarded as having performed debt collection work under the mandate contract
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 피고에게 추가로 지급을 명한 부분을 파기하고 이 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below that ordered additional payment by the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제1호 [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