Monday, November 29

Daebeop “Cheongho Nice water purifier AS technicians are workers”

Supreme Court view. material photo

The Supreme Court ruled that a technician who, as an independent business, signed a consignment contract with Cheongho Nice, a water purifier company, installed and installed the water purifier, was also a worker. The first division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Park Jeong-hwa) announced on the 23rd that it had returned the case to the Seoul Central District Court, breaking the original judgment that dismissed the claims of Mr. Mr. A signed a service contract from July 2009 to May 2016 at Cheongho Nice and worked as an engineer. Mr. B also worked under the same contract from February 2008 to January 2016. Their contract stated, “(Chungho Nice) is not an employment relationship, but (I) is an independent business owner who runs his own business according to his/her own judgment. Therefore, you cannot claim severance pay.” However, after the contract was terminated, Mr. A and Mr. B filed a lawsuit claiming severance pay of 31.83 million won and 18.56 million won, respectively, to Cheongho Nais, saying that they were in a subordinate labor relationship. When looking at the type of work such as Mr. A, Cheongho Nice put his management engineers, such as Mr. A, into a team of a nationwide organization consisting of a regional-region-office-team sequentially, and had a department to manage them at the headquarters. In addition, product installation and follow-up management tasks were assigned through the personal digital assistant (PDA) given to the drivers. Even if the customer directly requested follow-up management from the driver, the driver could handle the task only after contacting Cheongho Nice and going through the task registration and assignment process electronically. They also received regular product installation fees based on performance without a fixed base salary. In March 2018, the first trial dismissed the claims of Mr. A and Mr. B, saying, “It can be said that he independently performed the services under the consignment contract on his own account without receiving specific direction or supervision from Cheongho Nais. It is difficult to see him as a worker.” The 2nd and 1st instance judgments were maintained. However, the Supreme Court’s decision was different. The Supreme Court judged, “Despite the form of a consignment contract, it is reasonable to view the relationship as a labor contract in which Mr. A provides work to Cheongho Nais in a subordinate relationship.” He continued, “It can be seen that Chungho Nice has given considerable command and supervision regarding the performance of Mr. A’s work, such as performing the installation of products assigned to him. He added. By Jeon Kwang-jun, staff reporter [email protected]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *