Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Criteria deciding when supplying workers is labour dispatch
Supreme Court, Apr. 16, 2026, 2022Da225606 (judgment)
Case name: 근로자지위확인등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When an employer has a worker perform work for a third party, what elements decide whether that legal relationship is labour dispatch to which the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers applies?
Holding
The question is decided on the substance of the labour relationship, not on the name or form the parties gave the contract. The Court weighs together whether the third party gives binding instructions amounting to a considerable command, whether the worker is substantially integrated into the third party's business, whether the original employer independently decides selection, numbers, hours and the rest, whether the work is limited and specialist, and whether the employer has an independent organisation and facilities. On these facts it was hard to conclude that Plaintiffs 1 to 7 worked under such a command.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
제3자가 해당 근로자에 대하여 직간접적으로 업무수행 자체에 관한 구속력 있는 지시를 하는 등 상당한 지휘·명령을 하는지
Unofficial English translation
whether the third party gives direct or indirect binding instructions concerning the performance of the work itself to the relevant employee and thereby exercises substantial directions and orders
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원고 1, 원고 2, 원고 3, 원고 4, 원고 5, 원고 6, 원고 7에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 원고 8에 대한 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed with respect to Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, Plaintiff 6, and Plaintiff 7, and the case in this part is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The defendant's final appeal against Plaintiff 8 is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
원고용주가 계약의 목적을 달성하기 위하여 필요한 독립적 기업조직이나 설비를 갖추고 있는지 등의 요소를 바탕으로 근로관계의 실질에 따라 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The matter must be determined in accordance with the substance of the employment relationship on the basis of factors such as whether the employer possesses an independent business organization or facilities necessary to achieve the object of the contract.
Factors
- 제3자가 해당 근로자에 대하여 직간접적으로 업무수행 자체에 관한 구속력 있는 지시를 하는 등 상당한 지휘·명령을 하는지
- 해당 근로자가 제3자 소속 근로자와 하나의 작업집단으로 구성되어 직접 공동 작업을 하는 등 제3자의 사업에 실질적으로 편입되었다고 볼 수 있는지
- 원고용주가 작업에 투입될 근로자의 선발이나 근로자의 수, 교육 및 훈련, 작업·휴게시간, 휴가, 근무태도 점검 등에 관한 결정 권한을 독자적으로 행사하는지
- 계약의 목적이 구체적으로 범위가 한정된 업무의 이행으로 확정되고 해당 근로자가 맡은 업무가 제3자 소속 근로자의 업무와 구별되며 그러한 업무에 전문성·기술성이 있는지
- 원고용주가 계약의 목적을 달성하기 위하여 필요한 독립적 기업조직이나 설비를 갖추고 있는지
Unofficial English translation
• whether the third party gives direct or indirect binding instructions concerning the performance of the work itself to the relevant employee and thereby exercises substantial directions and orders
• whether the relevant employee is organized into a single work group with employees belonging to the third party and performs work jointly with them directly, such that the employee can be regarded as having been substantially incorporated into the third party's business
• whether the employer independently exercises decision-making authority regarding the selection of employees to be assigned to the work, the number of employees, education and training, working and break hours, leaves, and the inspection of work attitude, among other matters
• whether the object of the contract is fixed as the performance of work that is specifically limited in scope, whether the work undertaken by the relevant employee is distinguished from the work of employees belonging to the third party, and whether such work requires expertise or technical skill
• whether the employer possesses an independent business organization or facilities necessary to achieve the object of the contract
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2010다106436 판결(공2015상, 515)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2010Da106436 decided February 26, 2015 (Gong 2015 Sang, 515)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2010다106436 판결(공2015상, 515)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What facts distinguished the plant work of Plaintiff 8, in which the Supreme Court found no error in the finding of a dispatch relationship, from the packaging work of Plaintiffs 1 to 7?
The remand judgment of the Gwangju High Court on Plaintiffs 1 to 7 will show how the elements are applied to packaging work at a steelworks. Any amendment to Article 2(i) of the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, or a later decision revising the criteria listed here, calls for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 “What facts distinguished the plant work of Plaintiff 8, in which the Supreme Court found no error in the finding of a dispatch relationship, from the packaging work of Plaintiffs 1 to 7?” vs Independent “Would further findings on the steel company's actual operational instructions establish a worker dispatch relationship on remand?”
The primary reading asks what distinguished Plaintiff 8's plant work from the packaging work, while the independent reading asks whether further facts about the steel company's operational instructions would establish dispatch on remand.
제3자가 해당 근로자에 대하여 직간접적으로 업무수행 자체에 관한 구속력 있는 지시를 하는 등 상당한 지휘·명령을 하는지Raw 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 9 February 2022 (2019Na21025), held on the reasons it set out that Plaintiffs 1 to 7, employed by the defendant's in-house partner company and working on the packaging of cold-rolled products at the defendant's steelworks, were in a labour dispatch relationship and received direct commands from the defendant. It applied the same reasoning to Plaintiff 8, who did factory work for a partner company of the defendant.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found the contrary hard to accept. The defendant had never performed the packaging itself, while the partner company held its own experience and technology in the execution of that work, so the defendant's work standard documents were unlikely to amount to a binding command; the partner appears to have had some discretion within a range over the volume and pace, its employees' tasks were distinguished to some extent from and not interchangeable with the defendant's, and it was likely to have its own organisation and facilities, having been listed on KOSDAQ with turnover above KRW 100 billion from around 1997 and having filed many patents on packaging equipment and owned or installed much of the steelworks' packaging equipment. It reversed the part for Plaintiffs 1 to 7 for misapplying the law on labour dispatch and failing to hold a full hearing, but dismissed the defendant's appeal as to Plaintiff 8, in whose case it found no error affecting the judgment.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the workers are organised as one work unit with the third party's own employees and work jointly with them, so that integration into the third party's business is made out.
- A case in which the original employer itself decides who is assigned, how many work, and their hours and other conditions, since the Court relied on the partner company's independent authority over these matters.
- A case in which the contract covers work that is not confined to a defined scope, or in which the assigned work has no specialist or technical character, or the employer lacks an independent organisation or facilities for it.
Record verification notes
Set the work standard documents and specifications against the partner company's own role in writing and changing them, since the Court reasoned that its experience and opinions were likely reflected in them. Then check who set the volume, pace, staffing and shifts, whether the two sets of employees could substitute for one another, and whether the partner held patents, owned or had installed the equipment, and had an organisation of its own.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 원고용주가 근로자로 하여금 제3자를 위한 업무를 수행하도록 하는 경우, 파견근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률의 적용을 받는 ‘근로자파견’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 철강제조업 등을 영위하는 갑 주식회사의 사내협력업체인 을 주식회사에 고용되어 갑 회사의 제철소에서 냉연제품 포장업무를 수행한 병 등이 갑 회사를 상대로 근로자지위확인 등을 구한 사안에서, 제반 사정에 비추어 병 등이 갑 회사로부터 지휘·명령을 받는 근로자파견관계에 있었다고 단정하기 어렵다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Criteria for determining whether a case in which an employer has an employee perform work for a third party constitutes 'worker dispatch' subject to the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers [2] A case in which C and others, who were employed by B Corporation, an in-house cooperation partner of A Corporation, which engages in the steel manufacturing business, and who performed packaging work on cold-rolled steel products at A Corporation's steel mill, sought confirmation of employee status, etc. against A Corporation, in which case it was difficult to categorically recognize that C and others were in a worker dispatch relationship in which they received directions and orders from A Corporation, in light of all the circumstances
Summary of the holding
[1] 원고용주가 어느 근로자로 하여금 제3자를 위한 업무를 수행하도록 하는 경우 그 법률관계가 파견근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률의 적용을 받는 근로자파견에 해당하는지는 당사자가 붙인 계약의 명칭이나 형식에 구애될 것이 아니라, 제3자가 해당 근로자에 대하여 직간접적으로 업무수행 자체에 관한 구속력 있는 지시를 하는 등 상당한 지휘·명령을 하는지, 해당 근로자가 제3자 소속 근로자와 하나의 작업집단으로 구성되어 직접 공동 작업을 하는 등 제3자의 사업에 실질적으로 편입되었다고 볼 수 있는지, 원고용주가 작업에 투입될 근로자의 선발이나 근로자의 수, 교육 및 훈련, 작업·휴게시간, 휴가, 근무태도 점검 등에 관한 결정 권한을 독자적으로 행사하는지, 계약의 목적이 구체적으로 범위가 한정된 업무의 이행으로 확정되고 해당 근로자가 맡은 업무가 제3자 소속 근로자의 업무와 구별되며 그러한 업무에 전문성·기술성이 있는지, 원고용주가 계약의 목적을 달성하기 위하여 필요한 독립적 기업조직이나 설비를 갖추고 있는지 등의 요소를 바탕으로 근로관계의 실질에 따라 판단하여야 한다. [2] 철강제조업 등을 영위하는 갑 주식회사의 사내협력업체인 을 주식회사에 고용되어 갑 회사의 제철소에서 냉연제품 포장업무를 수행한 병 등이 갑 회사를 상대로 근로자지위확인 등을 구한 사안에서, ① 갑 회사는 포장작업을 직접 수행한 적이 없는 반면 을 회사는 포장업무의 직접적인 실행 과정에 관하여 독자적인 경험과 기술을 보유하였고, 이에 따라 갑 회사의 작업표준서 등의 작성·변경 과정에서 을 회사의 경험, 기술이나 의견이 실질적으로 반영되었을 소지가 크므로, 갑 회사가 작업표준서 등을 통하여 을 회사 소속 근로자에게 업무수행에 관하여 구속력 있는 지시를 하는 등 상당한 지휘·명령을 하였다고 단정하기 어려운 점, ② 을 회사에 일정 범위 내에서 작업량과 작업속도를 조절할 수 있는 재량이 있었다고 볼 소지가 있고, 갑 회사 소속 근로자들과 을 회사 소속 근로자들이 수행한 업무가 어느 정도 구분되고 서로 대체하는 관계에 있지 않는 등 병 등이 갑 회사의 사업에 실질적으로 편입되어 있었다고 인정하기에 부족한 점, ③ 갑 회사가 을 회사의 근로자 인원수나 근로시간을 비롯한 근로조건에 대한 일반적인 결정권을 행사하였다고 보기 어렵고, 을 회사는 병 등을 비롯한 소속 근로자들의 근무조 편성 등에 대한 결정 권한을 독자적으로 행사한 점, ④ 을 회사의 업무 범위는 포장작업으로 한정되었고, 을 회사는 포장업무의 실행 과정에 관해 독자적인 경험과 기술을 보유하면서, 포장설비에 관한 특허를 다수 등록·출원하는 등 전문성·기술성을 갖춘 점, ⑤ 을 회사는 이미 오래전 코스닥시장 상장법인으로 매출액이 1,000억 원을 넘었고, 갑 회사의 제철소의 포장설비 중 상당수는 을 회사가 소유하거나 판매·설치한 것으로 을 회사는 계약의 목적을 달성하기 위하여 필요한 독립적인 기업조직이나 설비를 갖추고 있었다고 볼 소지가 큰 점 등에 비추어 병 등이 갑 회사로부터 지휘·명령을 받는 근로자파견관계에 있었다고 단정하기 어려운데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 원고 1, 원고 2, 원고 3, 원고 4, 원고 5, 원고 6, 원고 7에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 원고 8에 대한 상고를 기각한다. 원고 8에 대한 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed with respect to Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, Plaintiff 6, and Plaintiff 7, and the case in this part is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The defendant's final appeal against Plaintiff 8 is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal with respect to Plaintiff 8 shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 파견근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호 / [2] 파견근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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