A distributer who worked with a company while being granted freedom to manage the business, contended that he was an employee of the company because he was at times presented by the company to third parties as such and demanded that social rights be paid to him by virtue of a working relationship between the parties.
The Labor Court rejected the motion, holding that there was no employment relationship between the parties. The main test for the existence of an employee-employer relationship is the integration test, which includes both a positive and negative aspect. In the positive aspect, it is reviewed whether the person is an integral part of the normal organizational setup of the workplace; and in the negative aspect, it is reviewed whether the person has his own business that serves the workplace externally. In addition, various auxiliary tests are also applied, such as the question of the existence of a personal relationship, the supervision test, the power to hire and terminate employees, the place of work, etc. Here, although the company sometimes presented the distributer as its employee, the other tests indicate that he ran an independent business in which he had a significant ability to increase his income and took on financial risk, had freedom of action in the management of the business and the supervision scope on him was minimal. Therefore, no employment relationship existed between the parties and the distributer is not entitled to payment of social rights by the company.