The drivers of owner-operators which owned by themselves have the doublestatus of the owner-operator and the driver. They seem self-employee or employedworker depending on the concrete actual relation. Regarding these driver of owneroperatorswho have the double status, there exist wide variety of views frominterpretation of the laws to legislative policy to consider them as employee workerswould be protected by labor law admit to employee concept, or as own businessoperators would be applied general civil law. Some of drivers of owner-operatorsmay stand in the equal or prominent position in relation to business transactions,but most of them might be in the weak position, possess one car purchased byinstallments or debt and sell their own labor for living. Therefore, in terms of socialfairness, it is advisable to interpret positively whether driver of owner-operators isrecognized as employee or not. Since there exist various forms of owner-operators,it is difficult to solve legal disputes by simple interpretation of the employeeconcept. As a result, need of separate legislation is raised for special types ofemployee workers as well as drivers of owner-operators. Current law in force regarding the employee concept have issues both inlegislation or interpretation. From the point of legislation, Merkmale presented bydefinition of employee concept provision in the current positive laws (The LaborStandards Act Article 2-1, The Labor Union Act Article 2-1) is not consistent with the results considering the relevance of legal effect and meaning so that it ishard to be utilized for the judgement criteria of employee concept. In the view ofinterpretation, precedents of employee concept judged by tangible approach andlisted the factual evidences parallel to check the relationship of employer -employeeonly, order relation or dominance relation can't be determined, with the results thatlegal stability is profoundly violated because of absence of predictability and highrisk of court's intervention. Also, based on the judgement of the Supreme Courtruling "use dependency" strictly, criteria's meet more than 51% of employee andless than 49% of self-employment could be protected as employee worker, however,extremely relevant to criteria's meet 49% of employee and more than 51% of selfemploymenthas no protection. Supreme Court's interpretation by comprehensivejudgement focused on "use dependency" excludes special type of employee workersstated in the middle of gray zone from the protection of the labor laws who arepractically workers but formed in workers in special types of employment. Considering the given environment expanding diversity of means of working andtype of utilizing labors, rather than dichotomous way of logic such as 'employee oremployer' or 'all or nothing', solution should be found how to protect self-employeeor self labor provider who looks like owner operator but actually provides ownlabor for compensation. Among them, many of underprivileged are living by sellingtheir own labors. While labour supply in a variety of forms to determine by singleframe named use dependency is difficult and using all of the approaches includingthe ontological approach, teleological approach and the positive law approach,to clarify the employee concept is probably impossible? Because technology andsociety are evolving rapidly, creating new forms of labor supply, and the increase ofremote working and flexible working and of course with the help of smart devicesinstruction is not directed at their own processes autonomously, the type of smartwork supply is widely spread. Even so, since the labor law is a last safety valve in capitalist society ensuring human life for people who take the lives by providingtheir labor, the employee concept to protect workers is somehow bound to define. Since employee concept is the entrance and exit of the labor law, interpretationand legislation should be faithfully directed to protect the labor providers, who aresocially disadvantaged. If one of purpose of the labor law is to restore substantialliberty for people who 'provide labors for others' not for people who 'work forthemselves', it is not advisable to exclude the drivers of owner-operators from thescope protected by the labor laws because of the points that they formally possessvehicles and choose the type of civil law contracts. Practically, the drivers of owneroperatorsbelong to dependent and subordinated labors. However, not all of laborsupply relations have dependency relations, there's no reason to prevent to selectcontracts in type of civil laws for outsourcing or mandating between labor suppliersand recipients. In this case, the parties freely decide in the comparable relationshipand its autonomy of the affairs should be respected. Adhering to the ideology oflabor law to protect social underprivileged, consideration to imposing restrictionson economic activities is needed. According to the interpretation of the current law in force, the drivers ofowner-operators are living on their income such as wages and salaries and theyare applicable to the employees who remain to exert the three rights of labor inconstitution. In addition, if use dependency concept (employee-employer concept)is strong, it is also possible to interpret as employee by the labor standard act. However, the most of the Supreme Court judged practically to refuse the employeeconcept for the special type of employee workers as well as the drivers of owneroperators. related laws. It is, however, recommended that legislating of special law enactinga part of the labor law to set the range of protection rather than appling entireprovision of labor laws for the special type of employee workers since they arerecognized as employee concept as well as they are characterized by the employerconcept in partial. Therefore, it's required to legislate a law for the people in between ownbusiness operators and employees. In case of legislation, either way is possible toextend the employee concept of the current labor related laws to the special type of employee workers or to legislate a special law in separate to enact the part of labor related laws. It is, however, recommended that legislating of special law enacting a part of the labor law to set the range of protection rather than appling entire provision of labor laws for the special type of employee workers since they are recognized as employee concept as well as they are characterized by the employer concept in partial.