"Dispatch Over Two Years Means Direct Employment"

[Ruling]

The Supreme Court has affirmed the lower court's decision, recognizing an employee dispatch relationship for repair technicians affiliated with Samsung Electronics Service partner companies, and ruling that direct employment is presumed if the dispatch period exceeds two years.

The Supreme Court's Civil Division 3 (Presiding Justice Lee Heungku) on June 12 dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the lower court's partial ruling in favor of the plaintiff in case 2022Da166, a lawsuit filed by Mr. A against Samsung Electronics Service seeking confirmation of employee status.

Photo to aid understanding of the article. Pixabay.

[Facts]

Mr. A, affiliated with a partner company of Samsung Electronics Service, had been responsible for repairing Samsung Electronics Service products since 2004. Mr. A claimed, "The employee dispatch relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant exceeded two years," and sought presumed employment status as well as payment of the wage difference with regular employees of the defendant from the date of presumed employment.

[Lower Courts]

The court of first instance ruled against the plaintiff, stating, "There was no direct employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant company, nor can the service contract between the defendant company and the partner company be regarded as an employee dispatch contract."

However, the appellate court found, "Although Mr. A was affiliated with a partner company, he worked under the direction and supervision of Samsung Electronics Service. An employee dispatch relationship was established from June 1, 2004, and after two years, on June 1, 2006, presumed direct employment occurred," and partially ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

[Key Issue]

Whether an employee dispatch relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant company

[Supreme Court Decision]

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court and dismissed the appeal, reaffirming existing legal principles. The Supreme Court stated, "The provision on presumed direct employment establishes the legal relationship and effects between the user employer and the dispatched worker. Its content is not directly related to the dispatching employer, and the continued existence of the employment relationship between the dispatching employer and the dispatched worker after the establishment of such legal relationship or effects is not a requirement for the validity of the presumption." The Court added, "Therefore, even if the dispatched worker resigns from or is dismissed by the dispatching employer after the presumption of direct employment between the user employer and the dispatched worker, such circumstances, in principle, do not affect the legal relationship related to the presumption of direct employment between the user employer and the dispatched worker."

The Court further stated, "The lower court found that although the plaintiff resigned from the defendant's partner company after the effect of presumed direct employment occurred, the effect of the presumption remained in place. On this basis, the lower court granted the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of employee status and for wages up to the date of resignation from the partner company." The Supreme Court concluded, "This judgment by the lower court is valid, and there was no error in misunderstanding the legal principles regarding the provision on presumed direct employment under the Dispatch Act that would have affected the outcome of the ruling."

An Jaemyung, Law Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.