Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Cooperative members as workers and a de facto manager as employer
Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2024Do20470 (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: 자격모용사문서작성·자격모용작성사문서행사·협동조합기본법위반·근로기준법위반·모욕
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the standard for deciding whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act apply equally to members of a cooperative established under the former Cooperative Framework Act, and who counts as a 'person in charge of business management' as a type of employer?
Holding
A cooperative member is a worker where, in substance, the member provided labour to the cooperative for wages in a subordinate relationship, judged by weighing the economic and social conditions together, and that status may exist alongside membership, just as shareholding or directorship alone does not defeat worker status. The Court applied Article 2(1)(i) and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act together with the former Cooperative Framework Act before the amendment of 31 March 2020 (Law No. 17158). A 'person in charge of business management' is a person entrusted by the owner with all or part of the business, responsible for its general management and representing or acting for it externally, so a person formally only a director who in fact runs the cooperative is an employer under the Act.
Points at issue, verbatim
근로기준법상 ‘근로자’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 / 이와 같은 법리는 구 협동조합 기본법에 따라 설립된 협동조합의 조합원의 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The criteria for determining whether one falls under the term 'employee' as used in the Labor Standards Act / Whether this legal principle applies equally to members of a cooperative established under the former Framework Act on Cooperatives (affirmative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
경제적·사회적 여러 조건을 종합하여 판단하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
must be determined by comprehensively considering various economic and social conditions
Factors
- 근로기준법상 ‘근로자’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
- 이와 같은 법리는 구 협동조합 기본법에 따라 설립된 협동조합의 조합원의 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용되는지 여부(적극)
- 근로기준법상 ‘사용자’의 한 유형인 ‘사업 경영 담당자’의 의미
- 근로기준법이 사용자를 사업주에 한정하지 아니하고 사업 경영 담당자 등으로 확대한 취지
- ‘사업 경영 담당자’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
• The criteria for determining whether one falls under the term 'employee' as used in the Labor Standards Act
• Whether this legal principle applies equally to members of a cooperative established under the former Framework Act on Cooperatives (affirmative)
• The meaning of 'person in charge of business management,' a type of 'employer' under the Labor Standards Act
• The purpose of the Labor Standards Act in expanding the definition of employer beyond the business owner to include persons in charge of business management and others
• The criteria for determining whether one falls under the category of 'person in charge of business management'
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 2009. 4. 23. 선고 2008도11087 판결, 대법원 2010. 10. 28. 선고 2010도9240 판결 / [2] 대법원 2008. 4. 10. 선고 2007도1199 판결(공2008상, 705), 대법원 2024. 4. 25. 선고 2024도1309 판결(공2024상, 866)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Would the same standard decide the status of members of a cooperative established under the Cooperative Framework Act as amended on 31 March 2020?
A decision addressing members of a cooperative formed under the current Cooperative Framework Act would require this entry to be read again, as this decision applied the former Act. An amendment to Article 2(1)(i) or (ii) of the Labor Standards Act on workers or employers would also call for a fresh reading.
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 “Would the same standard decide the status of members of a cooperative established under the Cooperative Framework Act as it stood before the amendment on 31 March 2020?” vs Independent “How would employee status be assessed where cooperative members genuinely control operations collectively and independently bear business profits and losses?”
The primary reading asks whether the standard survives the statutory amendment, while the independent reading asks how genuine collective management and independent profit and loss affect employee status.
근로기준법상 ‘근로자’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 / 이와 같은 법리는 구 협동조합 기본법에 따라 설립된 협동조합의 조합원의 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용되는지 여부(적극)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 Incheon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 28 November 2024 (2023No3826), found the defendant guilty of forgery of a document using a false qualification, use of such a document, offences under the former Cooperative Framework Act, a violation of Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and insult. It held that both the maintenance workers and the driver members of the Busan taxi cooperative were workers of the cooperative and that the defendant was the employer.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. On worker status it held that the legal relationship under the contract of employment and the rules of employment was not essentially different from that between a non-cooperative taxi operator and its ordinary drivers, and that the absence of real-time direction reflected the nature of taxi driving rather than defeating subordination. On employer status it held that the defendant, though formally only a director, led the establishment, the recruitment of members and the main working conditions by setting their broad framework and standards, and ran the cooperative in fact, and it dismissed the appeal in a unanimous decision.
Distinguishing conditions
- A cooperative member who, in substance, did not provide labour for wages in a subordinate relationship, so that only the cooperative relationship exists.
- A person whose formal position is a director but who did not in fact lead or run the cooperative, where the representative exercised the authority of that office.
- A driver member who could freely choose whether and when to run the taxi and was not bound by set working hours or required to pay the fixed standard fee.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the contract of employment, the rules of employment and the wage table, and check whether the cooperative in fact gave work instructions, kept attendance and managed dispatch as those rules contemplated. For the fixed standard fee, compare the amount paid with the running time needed to earn it, since the Court relied on that burden in rejecting free choice of hours. On employer status, look for who decided the main working conditions and who approved and executed funds, because the Court contrasted the defendant's conduct with the chairman's inaction.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 근로기준법상 ‘근로자’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 / 이와 같은 법리는 구 협동조합 기본법에 따라 설립된 협동조합의 조합원의 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용되는지 여부(적극) [2] 근로기준법상 ‘사용자’의 한 유형인 ‘사업 경영 담당자’의 의미 / 근로기준법이 사용자를 사업주에 한정하지 아니하고 사업 경영 담당자 등으로 확대한 취지 / ‘사업 경영 담당자’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criteria for determining whether one falls under the term 'employee' as used in the Labor Standards Act / Whether this legal principle applies equally to members of a cooperative established under the former Framework Act on Cooperatives (affirmative) [2] The meaning of 'person in charge of business management,' a type of 'employer' under the Labor Standards Act / The purpose of the Labor Standards Act in expanding the definition of employer beyond the business owner to include persons in charge of business management and others / The criteria for determining whether one falls under the category of 'person in charge of business management'
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
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제1호, 제36조, 제109조 제1항, 구 협동조합 기본법(2020. 3. 31. 법률 제17158호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1호, 제20조 / [2] 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제2호, 제36조, 제109조 제1항
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