abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

The content is also available in the following languages: 한국어

Article

26 Jan 2025

Author:
Min Kyung-jin, Hankyung Business

S. Korea: Court rules morning delivery drivers are eligible for industrial accident insurance, determined that they should be classified as contract employees

[Unofficial translation provided by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre]

“Market Kurly's early-morning delivery drivers classified as ‘couriers’… eligible for industrial accident insurance under special provisions”, 26 January 2025

In a lawsuit regarding whether early-morning delivery drivers at Market Kurly, a company specialising in dawn deliveries, are covered by industrial accident insurance, both the first and second trials ruled in favour of the drivers.

…However, while the first-instance court recognised the drivers as employees under the Labour Standards Act, the appellate court determined that the Market Kurly delivery drivers should be classified as contract laborers in special types of employment (gig workers/couriers) and, therefore, eligible for industrial accident insurance under the special provisions law.

…The appellate court further argued that the establishment of the participant company was specifically intended to handle logistics and delivery operations for Market Kurly. While the participant company and Market Kurly are legally distinct entities, the court found that it was reasonable to evaluate the nature and activities of the participant company in relation to the operations previously carried out by Market Kurly.

…The appellate court stated, “At least in the case at hand, the plaintiff could not dedicate himself solely to the delivery of goods entrusted by the participant during the agreed working hours. He also seems to have rarely used third parties to carry out the tasks, such as employing others to assist with the deliveries.” Therefore, the court concluded that it was appropriate to classify the plaintiff as someone who does not use others in providing labour.