In light of the fact that the car masters received sales allowances from the agency and did not directly direct and supervise the car masterss, and the car masters worked at the agency’s workplace or the direct management store, etc., the agent cannot be deemed to have established an implied labor contract relationship between Company A and Company B, on the grounds that the agent did not have any identity or independence as the business owner, and that the sales agency contract between Company A and Company B, etc. entered into with Company A, has the substance of the contract, and the agent did not have any direct and indirect employment relationship with Company A, and the agent did not have any direct and indirect employment relationship with Company A by requiring Company A to comply with the contractual obligations within the scope of entrustment as the contracting party in accordance with the sales agency contract, the agent contract between Company A and Company B, etc., with Company A and the agent’s own expense and effort, and the agent did not have any direct and indirect employment relationship with Company A, etc., and it cannot be deemed that Company A and the agent contract concluded with Company A, etc., with Company A and its employees under its direct and indirect direction and order.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Preliminary, Plaintiffs 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 14, 18, and 19 verify that, from the point of time when two years have elapsed from the corresponding date indicated in the “date of admission” column in the attached Table List of Plaintiffs 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 14, 18, and 19, Plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, 10, and 13, from August 2, 2012, Plaintiffs 7, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 20, respectively, are the Defendant’s workers from the corresponding date indicated in the “date of entry” column in the attached Table List of Plaintiffs.

Preliminary, Plaintiffs 1, 2, 8, 11, and 18 verify that they were the Defendant’s employee status from the time two years have elapsed from each of the corresponding days indicated in the “Date of Admission” in the attached list of Plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are the Defendant’s expression of intention of employment.

A. Status of the parties

1) The defendant is a company whose main purpose is to manufacture and sell automobiles, related parts, etc.

2) The Plaintiffs entered into a car sales service contract (hereinafter “sales service contract”) with the Defendant’s agent with the terms “the Plaintiff would sell a motor vehicle manufactured by the Defendant and receive a sales allowance from the agent” (hereinafter “the date of entry”) and the term “affiliated agency” in the attached list of the Plaintiffs as the car masters at each of the relevant agencies indicated “the date of entry” as indicated in the “the date of entry” in the attached list of the Plaintiffs.

B. Conclusion of the defendant's automobile sales organization and sales agency contract

1) From the date of 197, the Defendant established a place of business directly operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “direct store”) and appointed regular employees employed by the Defendant as sales workers (3) and had them carry out automobile sales business. Since then, the Defendant introduced the agency system, which introduced the agency system to grant the agency authority to the agent and to have the car masters who entered into a sales service contract with the agency owner carry out automobile sales business.

2) As of January 2015, based on the defendant's domestic headquarters, the defendant has 23 regional headquarters in each region under the defendant's domestic headquarters, and has 426 direct control points and 390 agencies under the local headquarters, and operates the motor vehicle sales organization (Evidence A2).

3) The main parts of the sales agency contracts that the Defendant concludes with the agency owner are as follows (The following contract contents are part of the sales agency contracts that the Defendant concluded with the ○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Defendant is deemed to have concluded the sales agency contracts with the same form of sales agency contracts with the same owner. The Defendant appears to have concluded the sales agency contracts with the same content as the agency owner; hereinafter “sales agency contracts”).

본문내 포함된 표 피고(이하 ‘갑’이라 함)와______(이하 ‘을’이라 함)은 갑이 생산 또는 공급하는 자동차 의 영업행위에 관하여 아래와 같이 약정한다. 제1조(목적) 이 계약은 갑이 생산 또는 공급하는 자동차의 국내 판매 권리를 을에게 부여함에 있어서 갑과 을 간의 권한과 책임을 규정하고 판매촉진 및 업무표준화를 도모하여 공동의 번영과 건전한 시장질서 확립을 목적으로 한다. 제3조(판매대리권) ① 갑은 을에게 갑이 생산 또는 공급하는 자동차 중 갑이 별도로 정하는 차종의 판매대리권을 부여한다. 단, 을은 이 권리를 배타적으로 행사할 수 없다. ② 을은 갑의 사전 서면 동의 없이 판매대리권 등 모든 권리, 권한을 제3자에게 양도하거나 담보로 제공할 수 없으며, 제3자로 하여금 자기에 갈음하여 행사하게 할 수 없다. ③ 을이 법인일 경우, 갑의 사전 서면 동의를 얻어 대표이사를 변경할 수 있고 이를 어길 경우 갑은 1개월 전에 서면(전자문서 포함)으로 예고하고 계약을 해지할 수 있으며, 연대보증인으로 입보한 임직원의 교체, 퇴직 등 변동사항 발생 시 갑에게 사전 서면으로 통지하여야 한다. ④ 을이 판매 가능한 차종은 갑이 별도로 정한다. 단, 갑은 판매정책과 시장상황 등을 고려하여 필요할 경우, 을과 협의를 거쳐 이를 변경(추가, 제한)할 수 있다. ⑤ 을은 갑의 사전 서면 동의 없이 출장소, 연락사무소 등 그 명칭을 불문하고 분점을 임의로 설치, 운영해서는 안 된다. 제5조(시장관할) ① 갑과 을은 사전 합의에 의하여 을의 주요 영업활동 지역을 지정할 수 있다. ② 을이 제1항에서 정한 지역범위 내에서 판매대리점을 이전하여야 할 정당한 사유가 있는 경우에는 다른 판매대리점 또는 갑의 지점과 적정한 거리를 유지하고 갑과 사전 협의를 거쳐 판매대리점을 이전할 수 있다. 제7조(시설, 인력확보) ① 을은 자동차 판매에 필요한 사무실, 전시장, 주차시설과 인원을 갑이 정하는 기준에 부합하도록 운영하여야 한다. ② 을은 갑과 사전 협의를 거쳐 자동차 관련 부대사업(보험, 등록, 중고차, 부품, 정비 등)을 관련 법규에 따라 운영할 수 있다. 제9조(준수사항) 갑 또는 을은 다음 각호의 사항을 성실히 준수하여야 한다. ① 을은 갑이 정한 판매절차, 판매조건, 채권확보, 연체관리 등 제반 업무지침을 준수하여야 한다. ③ 을은 영업행위와 관련하여 기존에 수립된 갑과 을 간의 제반 업무처리 기준, 절차, 요령을 준수하여야 한다. 제10조(인원관리) ① 을은 판매대리점 인원을 채용하고 그 인원을 갑에게 등록하여야 한다. ② 을은 인원 채용과 관련하여 공금사고 또는 판매질서 문란행위 등의 경력이 있는 자로서 판매대리점 인원으로 근무하기가 부적합하다고 판단되는 자의 채용을 방지하여야 한다. ③ 을은 주요 영업활동 지역의 시장상황, 판매대리점 운영능력, 사무실 환경 등을 고려하여 적정 수준의 영업인원을 채용하도록 노력하여야 한다. ④ 을은 판매대리점 인원에게 계약상 규정과 갑의 업무지침을 고지하여 철저히 준수하도록 관리하여야 한다. ⑤ 을은 판매대리점 인원의 직급을 갑의 지점 직원 및 동종 업계의 직급 체계에 준하여 운영한다. 제11조(금지행위) ① 을 또는 판매대리점 인원은 갑의 사전 서면 동의 없이 다음 각호에 해당하는 행위를 하여서는 아니 된다. 1) 갑에게 등록하지 아니한 자에게 판매권을 위임하는 행위 2) 타사 자동차를 판매하는 행위 3) 내수용 자동차를 해외로 반출하는 행위 4) 인터넷 중개업자의 알선을 통하여 자동차를 판매하거나, 인터넷을 이용하여 갑 자동차 판매조건을 무단 게재, 이면할인 또는 물품의 제공 등을 밝힘으로써 갑의 판매 관련 업무지침을 위반하는 행위 5) 갑이 시행하는 판매조건 이외의 이면할인(물품 포함)을 고객에게 제공하는 행위 6) 갑의 지점 직원 또는 다른 판매대리점에 판매실적을 주거나 받는 행위 7) 갑의 영업과 동종의 영업을 목적으로 하는 업체에 이중으로 인원 등록하는 행위 8) 기타 비정상적인 방식으로 판매질서를 문란하게 하는 일체의 행위 ② 을은 판매대리점 인원이 제1항 각호의 행위를 하여 판매대리점에 근무하기가 부적합하다고 판단될 경우, 그 인원에 대하여 영업행위를 수행하게 할 수 없다. 제14조(판매가격, 판매조건) ① 을은 자동차를 판매함에 있어서 갑이 정한 판매가격, 판매조건, 기타 판매에 관한 제반 기준, 절차, 요령을 준수하여야 한다. ② 갑은 시장여건, 판매전략에 따라 제1항의 기준, 절차, 요령을 변경할 수 있고, 이를 을에게 통지한다. ③ 을은 갑 소정의 자동차매매계약서와 상이한 내용으로 고객과 계약을 체결하고자 할 경우에는 이를 사전에 갑과 협의하여야 한다. 제17조(개인정보의 보호) ① 을은 개인정보 보호법, 정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률, 신용정보의 이용 및 보호에 관한 법률 등 관계 법령 및 갑의 개인정보(신용정보 포함, 이하 동일함) 취급 업무지침을 준수하여 개인정보를 수집·이용하여야 한다. ② 을은 갑의 사전 서면 동의 없이 갑이 제공한 개인정보를 별도로 저장 및 보관하지 않는다. 단, 갑의 사전 서면 동의를 얻어 개인정보를 별도로 저장 및 보관하는 경우에는 개인정보 보호를 위하여 개인정보를 안전하게 취급하기 위한 내부관리계획의 수립·시행, 개인정보 접근 통제장치의 설치·운영 등 기술적, 관리적 조치를 취하여야 한다. ⑦ 을은 판매대리점 인원이 개인정보 보호의무를 준수하도록 관리, 감독할 책임이 있다. 제19조(대금납입) ① 을은 자동차 대금을 자동차매매계약에 따라 수령하여 당일 은행 마감시간까지 갑에게 납입하여야 한다. 단, 은행 마감시간 이후에 수령한 대금은 다음 영업일 개시 즉시 납입하여야 한다. 이 경우 자동차 대금은 계약금, 인도금, 일시불, 할부금, 기타 그 지급조건 여하를 불문한다. 제20조(판매수수료 지급) ① 을이 고객에게 자동차를 인도하였을 때 갑은 을과 약정한 판매수수료 지급기준에 따라 을에게 판매수수료를 지급한다. ② 제1항의 판매수수료는 매월 1일부터 말일까지 실출고에 대하여 다음 달 15일 지급함을 원칙으로 한다. 단, 해당 일이 공휴일 또는 금융권의 휴무일인 경우에는 그 전날에 지급한다. 제21조(판매수수료 공제) ① 갑은 다음 각호의 경우, 을에게 지급할 판매수수료와 을에 대한 채권을 상계(공제) 처리할 수 있다. 1) 을 또는 그 대리인, 판매대리점 인원이 계약상의 의무를 위반하거나 게을리함으로써 갑에게 손해가 발생한 경우 2) 을이 갑 또는 고객과의 거래 관계로 인하여 부담한 갑에 대한 채무의 이행을 지체한 경우 ② 갑은 비정상적인 방식으로 판매질서를 문란하게 하는 행위를 근절하기 위하여 을 또는 판매대리점 인원이 다음 각호의 행위를 한 경우에는 을에게 지급한 판매수수료를 환수하거나, 판매수수료 지급 책임을 면한다. 1) 내수용 자동차를 해외로 반출한 경우 2) 인터넷 중개업체의 알선을 통하여 판매한 경우 3) 갑의 지점 직원 또는 다른 판매대리점으로부터 판매실적을 받아 판매한 경우 제22조(영업시간) ① 을은 영업행위를 효율적으로 수행하고, 고객만족을 실천하기 위하여 선량한 관리자의 주의로써 판매대리점과 그 인원을 관리하여야 한다. ② 고객에 대한 통일적인 서비스를 위하여 을은 판매대리점 시업·종업시각과 전시장 당직을 갑의 지점에 준하여 운영하여야 한다. ③ 을이 휴업하거나 2일 이상 출근할 수 없는 경우에는 사전에 그 사유를 갑에게 통지하여야 한다. 제26조(판매목표) ① 을은 갑이 제시하는 다음 각호의 목표를 달성할 수 있도록 노력하여야 한다. 1) 연간 및 월간 차종별 판매대수 2) 연간 및 월간 차종별 판매손실률 3) 기타 판매 관리상의 목표 ② 갑은 제1항 각호의 목표를 을의 시장상황, 판매실적, 영업능력 등을 감안하여 결정한다. 제28조(영업조사) ① 갑은 직접 또는 위촉한 자를 통하여 을이 계약상 의무를 성실히 이행하고 있는지 여부를 조사할 수 있다. ② 갑이 제1항에 따라 조사를 할 경우, 을에게 조사할 내용, 기간, 조사할 자의 성명 등을 사전에 서면(전자문서 포함)으로 통지하여야 한다. ③ 을이 조사할 내용, 기간 등을 변경하여야 할 정당한 사유가 발생한 경우에는 갑과 사전 합의를 거쳐 조사할 수 있다. ④ 갑이 조사할 내용을 추가하거나 기간을 연장할 경우에는 을에게 그 사유를 충분히 설명하여야 한다. ⑤ 갑은 조사를 위하여 을의 장부, 전표, 기타 영업상의 서류 열람을 요구할 수 있다. 단, 을 또는 그 대리인, 판매대리점 인원이 자동차 대금 및 부대비용 수납 업무지침을 위반하였다고 판단될 경우에 한하여 을 또는 그 대리인, 판매대리점 인원에게 관련 자료의 열람을 요구할 수 있다. ⑥ 을은 갑의 조사활동에 적극 협조하여야 하고, 갑은 을 또는 그 대리인, 판매대리점 인원이 제출한 서류와 자료를 임의로 제3자에게 공개하지 아니한다. 제29조(손해배상) 을은 자신 또는 그 대리인, 판매대리점 인원이 관계 법령과 계약상 의무를 위배하는 행위를 함으로써 갑에게 손해가 발생한 경우에는 그 손해를 배상하여야 한다. 제30조(제재조치) ① 을 또는 판매대리점 인원이 갑의 업무지침이나 계약상의 의무를 위반하는 행위를 한 경우, 갑은 사안에 따라 을에 대하여 경고, 일정 기간 계약출고정지, 인센티브 지급제외(환수) 등의 조치를 취할 수 있다. 제31조(교육) ① 갑은 을의 영업행위를 지원하기 위하여 을과 판매대리점 인원을 상대로 판촉활동, 판매금융, 채권관리, 고객관리, 자동차 구조, 정비 등에 관한 각종 교육(간담회, 회의, 세미나, 설명회 포함)을 실시할 수 있다. 이 경우 을과 판매대리점 인원은 특별한 사유가 없는 한 갑의 교육에 참석하여야 한다. ② 갑은 제1항의 교육을 실시하고자 할 경우, 그 시기, 장소, 방법 등을 을에게 사전 통지하여야 하며, 갑은 소요비용 중 일부를 을에게 부담시킬 수 있다. ③ 을은 각종 교육을 이수하지 아니하는 등 판매대리점 인원으로서 그 자질이 부족하다고 판단되는 자에게 영업행위를 수행하게 하는 경우가 없도록 노력하여야 한다. 제32조(평가) 갑은 판매대리점 운영활성화를 위하여 소정의 지표 달성 여부에 대한 평가를 시행할 수 있으며, 그 평가기준과 포상내용 등은 갑이 별도로 정하여 을에게 통지한다.

4) The agency owner directly owns or owns a building necessary for the agency's operation by leasing and possessing office supplies such as books, computers, etc. at its own expense, and engages in separate accounting and tax processing with the Defendant in relation to sales commission, expenses incurred in operating the agency, etc. received from the Defendant.

(c) Solicitation of car masters, conclusion of sales services contracts, termination of contracts, etc.;

1) An agency (hereinafter “agency”), except where it is necessary to distinguish between an agency and an agent, without distinguishing the agency’s own responsibility and authority, concludes a sales service agreement by inviting the car masters, and the Defendant does not participate in the process of recruiting and employing the car masters. In general, the agent, by providing the car masters recruitment notice at the job offer site, shall recruit the car masters applicants and determine whether to conclude the sales service agreement through document screening and interview with the applicants.

2) In relation to the sales services contract entered into between the agency and the car masters, the Defendant provides a specific form in the agency management guidelines distributed to the agency (No. 89 No. 44-45 pages), and the agency generally concludes the sales services contract by referring to the above forms. The specific terms and conditions of the contract may vary depending on the agency or car masters, and some car masterss do not prepare a sales services contract form. Of the sales services contract form provided by the Defendant, the parts relating to the instant case are as follows.

(2) In the event that the sales of the vehicle A is carried out on the basis of good faith, including sales of the vehicle A and the management of collection fees, it shall be performed on the basis of the following: Article 1 (Scope of Services) (1) Services Allowances: Article 3 (Education and Business Support) shall be paid to the vehicle B. ① All data and support necessary for the sales of the vehicle B shall be actively required to attend the education and various meetings as designated by the Party A, and (2) Article 4 (Duties of Party B) shall be kept in good faith, and the contract for the sales of the vehicle A shall be kept in order to secure the balance between the sales of the vehicle B and the sales of the vehicle A and the sales of the vehicle B, and the agreement for the sales of the vehicle B shall be kept in effect and shall be provided immediately after the expiration of the contract.

3) The agency, after inviting the car masters, requests the △△△ Motor Agency Association (the agent's organizations established by the agent owners in around 1998 for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of the agency system, contributing to the creation of a sound motor vehicle distribution market; hereinafter the "agency Association") to examine the qualification requirements of the relevant car masters, and requests the defendant to register the car masters. The defendant's regional headquarters shall review this request and issue the relevant car masters, or reject the registration on the ground of the qualification requirements and grounds of disqualification (Evidence A No. 4, 93).

4) A person registered as a car masters is issued with a membership card stating the Defendant’s mission (Magsung), the name of its affiliated agency, and the class, and the Defendant’s mission, the name of its affiliated agency, and the phrase “proving that the person is a party’s agency employee” (Evidence No. 5 and 6).

5) Until October 2015, the Defendant and the agency paid KRW 500,00 to the new car masterss with the monthly settlement subsidy for six months. The aforementioned settlement subsidy was borne by each of the Defendant and each agency, respectively. From November 2015, the Defendant and each agency paid KRW 100,000 to the new car masterss aged below 35 years, and KRW 50,000 to the new car masterss aged above 35 years, and the said settlement subsidy is borne by the Defendant and the agency at the rate of KRW 6:4 or 5:5 (Evidence 8).

6) The Defendant shall prepare the standards for the name of position at which the car masters can externally use, taking into account the period of performance of duties, sales performance, etc., and accordingly select the car masters who can use the pertinent class and notify the agency of the list (No. 27, No. 119).

7) Where the agency terminates the sales service contract with the car masters or does not conclude the re-contract, it shall notify the Defendant of the termination of the contract with the relevant car masters, and the Defendant shall delete the sales code of the relevant car masters (Evidence A 120).

(d) Performance of the duties of car masters;

1) The car masters generally have the time for inquiry by attending the agency from 08:30 to 08:30. The agency gives notice of sales promotional activities, sales conditions, etc. necessary for sales activities, or provides product education to the car masters, and allow them to view audio-visual images produced by the Defendant. However, the agency does not have such time for inquiry at all agencies, but there is a difference between the car masters’s mandatory attendance at the inquiry time and the agency’s demand (No. 10).

2) The car masters will carry out the business of selling cars to unspecified customers. The car masters will not only carry out the car sales business at the agency, but also persuade their customers by having contact with the customers in various places with the outer place.

3) The car masters may carry out the sales business by putting the customers inside the car overall market within the agency according to the sequence of regular duty. In the exhibition room, most car masters may easily contact the customers who found in order to purchase automobiles, and thus, most of them offer the above exhibition duty service. The agency shall equally allocate the opportunity for performing the duty on duty on the exhibition, and shall set the order or method of the duty on its own to ensure that there is no gap in the duty on the exhibition. The method of setting the order of the duty on the basis of the agency is different for each agency. The method of setting the order of the duty on the basis of the car masters’s sales code is different for each agency, where the order of the duty on the duty is set in order of the car masters’s sales code, and the car masters did not participate in the Defendant (No. 114 evidence, No. 10 evidence, No. 10).

4) If the car masters sells a car to a customer, the sales proceeds shall be deposited to the virtual account designated by the Defendant or to the Defendant’s representative account. The Defendant shall pay the sales commission determined in advance by car type to the agent, and the agent shall pay the sales commission in accordance with the sales commission ratio set in advance to the car masters. The sales commission to be paid by the agent is in accordance with the terms of the sales service agreement between the car masters and the agent. The sales commission to be paid by the car masters is in distinction between the car masters and the agent, and there is a difference in the method of determining the sales commission, payment rate, and payment method (Article 5)

5) In addition to the above sales commission, car masters received sales performance support and sales promotion support in consideration of sales performance and continuous service training from the Defendant, ② strategic paper subsidy that can be received when selling strategic tea designated by the Defendant, ③ 100,000 won. ④ In purchasing the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant was provided with certain discount benefits, ⑤ subscription to accident insurance, and ④ mobile phone text messages expenses that may be used for sales promotional activities (Evidence No. 30, 79 No. 129-31, and Evidence No. 142 through 145).

E. The defendant's agency's occupational instruction

1) The Defendant shall encourage the agency periodically to achieve the above sales target by presenting the sales target (Evidence A, Article 12, 104, 105, 149, and 208 of the Act), and shall give a reward to, or award a prize to, an agent and a car masters with excellent sales performance (Evidence A, Article 25, 26, and 140 of the Act). The Defendant assessed the comprehensive sales performance of the agency, such as monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, sales promotion rate, sales enhancement rate, and middle-class sales achievement rate (Evidence A, 61, 67, and 106 of the Act), and the agency with poor sales performance, issued a warning on the ground of poor sales performance (Evidence A, 97 of the Act).

2) The Defendant directed the agency to proceed with promotional activities by type of car, time, and expected customer. The agency provided the agency with promotional items, such as Daglass, pockets, calendars, calendars, etc. for promotion, and the agency prepared a report on the promotional results and made a report on the promotional activities to the Defendant (No. 13 through 16, 18, 43 through 60, 67, 107 through 110, 141, 195, 198). However, the agency or car masters purchased the promotional items at its own expense in DM, which is the Defendant’s site for the purchase of the promotional items (No. 10-11, 19, 200).

3) The Defendant: (a) prepared guidelines on the uniforms of the car masters or agency employees working in the entire market; (b) guidelines on the operation of exhibition halls and signboards; (c) guidelines on exhibition halls and signboards; (d) guidelines on the exhibition halls and telephone calls, audit and telephone calls, etc. to be performed by car masters for customers; and (c) periodically conducted telephone monitoring, customer response on-site investigations, etc. to assess whether the agency complies with the above guidelines (Evidence No. 10, 17, 62, 63, 64, 69, 111, 112, 113, 151, 194).

4) The Defendant, at each time, prepared the work guidelines to be observed by the agents and car masters, including the guidelines on the conditions of sale, the guidance on the operation of the marketing (contract/explosion), the guidance on the performance of each type of service, and the guidance on the performance-based system (Evidence A, 19, 116, 117, and 118).

5) The Defendant emphasized that the car masters did not violate the Defendant’s prohibited matters, or urged the Defendant to comply with the Defendant’s guidelines, such as the prohibition of departure, prohibition of the sale of other vehicles in front, prohibition of the removal of cars out of accommodation, prohibition of the removal of personal accounts (Evidence A, No. 122 and 123). In the event that the agent or the car masters violates the foregoing prohibition, the agent or the car masters recovered a certain amount of sales commission or sales commission to be paid to the agent, and took measures, such as: (a) the contract delivery, suspension of the delivery, 131, 150 (Evidence A, No. 28, 65, 66, 126, 131, 150); (b) the agent or car masters’s violation was confirmed through periodic business guidance (Audit).

F. Computer networks and computer programs provided by the Defendant

1) The Defendant provides the agency with a computer network or computer program, such as a domestic sales system, customer relations management system (HCRS), agency management support system (Dms, Dealer Management Support System), office management support system (Dmway), overland, DM round, Smart PPS, TOPS, E-Campus (Evidence A 31).

2) The domestic sales system is a system that electronically processes of automobile sales, such as the conclusion of car contracts, vehicle allocation, inventory management, logistics, and shipping processing, and the agency shall conduct automobile sales (Evidence A 37) by using it.

3) The △△△ Motor that has a transaction relationship with the △△ Motor Group to which the Defendant belongs, and △△△ Motor Sales Agency, etc., service subcontractors including △△△ Motor Sales Agency, parts subcontractor, construction subcontractor, etc., or the above subcontractor may send an official document to the Defendant or, on the contrary, deliver the information requested by the subcontractor to the Defendant (Evidence A No. 38 and 68).

4) The Defendant support the agency management support system, which is a computer program for operating the agency. The agency management support system may use a domain new, such as agency management, personnel management, sales status and performance, fee management, business management, reward and regulation (Evidence 4). Of the agency management support system, the agency may set the rate of payment of commission to the car masters in the business management domain. Of the agency management support system, the agency may choose the types of payment such as “fixed rate,” “fixed rate,” “fixed rate,” “fixed rate,” “fixed rate,” “fixed rate,” and “other”. The agency management support system may verify sales performance and sales allowances to be paid by using a part of the agency management support system (Evidence 39, evidence 5, evidence 5).

5) The customer relations management system is a system that enables the agents or car masters to verify the customer’s basic information, information on contracts and delivery vehicles, customer maintenance records, etc., or to verify the customer’s information secured by the Defendant’s customer center, website, alliance credit card company, etc., and the car masters may engage in promotional activities against the customer using the above program (Evidence A 33, 34).

6) Smart width is a program that provides information necessary for the sale of vehicles, such as the appearance of the vehicle, the interior, appearance, price and discount, etc. of the vehicle, and comparison with other vehicles (Evidence A 35). TOPS is a program that can confirm the estimate of the vehicle requested by the agency or the car masters, the inventory status of the vehicle, the manufacture plan, the request and allocation status, etc., or enter into an electronic contract according to the quotation (Evidence A 36).

7) The e-Camus is a program to support the education of officers and employees of the Defendant, △△ Motor, Defendant’s group company, agent, and collaborative company. The car masters may view and evaluate the video lectures provided by the Defendant using the above program (Evidence A No. 7-3, 40, 41, 73, 74).

8) The Defendant prohibited the car masters from performing their management or sales activities using the private program, not the official program provided by the Defendant, and notified the relevant agency that sanctions should be imposed when the car masters discovered the use of such private program (Evidence A No. 20).

(g) Education of car masters;

1) The Defendant provided education for the car masters, including “basic education for the car masters business”, “education for the improvement of sales capacity of car masters”, “3,5, and 7 years old”, and “the e-Castus △△△△△△,” and provided education and evaluation through the e-Castus (No. 21, 23, 24, 41, 74, 77 through 88, 94, 96, 9, 132 through 135, 203, 205, and 206). The Defendant provided that the car masters with poor sales performance are subject to the improvement of sales capacity and provided them with education for the improvement of sales capacity (No. 209, 210 evidence).

2) The Defendant provided basic education for the new car masters for about five days for the purpose of cultivating basic character, acquiring goods knowledge and business skills. According to the evaluation of the above curriculum, the car masters falling under the lower 10-20% of the above curriculum failed to be recognized as having completed the pertinent education, and thus, receive re-education, and the Defendant may not receive settlement support or sales performance support (Evidence 7).

3) Ordinaryly, the Defendant produced educational images on car sales techniques, public notices on the Defendant’s sales conditions and promotional activities, and public notices on the matters prohibited by the Defendant, etc. using a program such as e-Campus, etc. for viewing the said images by car masters, and assessed the car masters’ e-learning completion rate, 70, 71, 72, 100, 121, 207 for each agency’s agency’s evaluation (Evidence A).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 1 through 10, 12 through 30, 32 through 89, 93 through 9, 101 through 145, 147 through 151, 194 through 198, 202 through 218, Eul's statements, Eul's 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, 19, 21, 221, and 22 (including the branch numbers for those with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap's statements, Gap's 11, 31, 100, Eul's statements, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiffs

1) Although the Plaintiffs were formally affiliated with the agency and carried out the automobile sales business, the agency was merely a formal and clear purpose to the extent that it can be deemed identical to the Defendant’s labor agency because it has no identity as the business owner or lack of independence, and in substance, the Defendant directly used and directed the Plaintiffs by providing education to the Plaintiffs, providing work instructions, and supervising them. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant are in an implied labor contract relationship. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are primarily seeking confirmation that the Plaintiffs are in the status of the Defendant’s employee (the primary claim).

2) Even if it cannot be deemed that an implied labor contract relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was established, the Plaintiffs were engaged in automobile sales business under the Defendant’s command and order, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant were in a de facto temporary placement relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, such as being assigned to the Defendant’s automobile sales business. Therefore, according to the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (hereinafter “Dispatch Act”), sought confirmation of the Plaintiffs’ status as the Defendant’s employee or seeking declaration of intention to employ the Plaintiffs (Article 1 and 2 preliminary claims).

B. Defendant

1) The agency, as an independent business entity independent of the Defendant, concluded a sales service contract with the car masters and paid sales allowances by itself. The car masters freely run the automobile sales business in accordance with the sales service contract concluded with the agency and did not receive direct instructions from the Defendant. Therefore, the agent cannot be deemed to have established an implied employment contract relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

2) The Plaintiffs were personal business operators who entered into a sales services contract with an agency, and did not provide the Defendant with labor. Since they did not perform automobile sales business in the Defendant’s control area, the Plaintiffs did not establish a worker dispatch relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

3. Whether an implied employment contract relationship exists between the plaintiffs and the defendant

A. Relevant legal principles

If an employee employed by the employer of a third party and employed by the employer of a third party to be an employee of a third party, the employer of a third party is merely a formal and nominal relationship with the labor agency of a third party by lacking identity or independence as the employer, and in fact, the relevant employee is in a subordinate relationship with the third party. A person who actually pays wages is a third party, and as the other party to the provision of labor is also a third party, an implied labor contract relationship between the relevant employee and the third party is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du4367, Jul. 22, 2010).

B. Determination

1) The following circumstances revealed based on each of the above evidence, i.e., (i) the agent owns or owns the agency building on its own, (ii) the agent owns and owns the office supplies or agency operation expenses on its own, (iii) the agent has the substance of a business operator distinct from the defendant, such as the accounting and tax processing independently from the defendant, and (iv) the car masters received sales commission from the agent and received instructions and orders, and the defendant did not direct and supervise the car masters, and (iii) the car masters worked at the agent’s workplace, such as the agent’s work in the agency to which he belongs or the agent’s sales activities within the agency’s business area, and did not work at the Defendant’s workplace or direct store. In light of the above circumstances, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the agent cannot be deemed to have been in excess of the defendant’s labor agency due to lack of the identity of the business owner or loss of independence.

2) Therefore, it cannot be deemed that an implied labor contract relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant was established. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Whether a temporary placement relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant is recognized

A. Relevant legal principles

1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Dispatch Act provides, “Temporary placement of workers means that a temporary work agency employs a worker and has him/her engage in work for a user company under the direction and order of the user company in accordance with the terms of the contract on temporary placement of workers while maintaining the employment relationship.” Thus, if an actual employer, regardless of the name or form of the contract entered into between two employers, employs a worker and allows him/her to engage in work for another employer under the direction and order of another employer, such act constitutes temporary placement of workers, and thus, the Dispatch Act shall apply.

2) Whether it constitutes a worker dispatch shall be determined in accordance with the substance of the relevant employment relationship based on the elements such as ① whether a third party directly or indirectly gives a binding order on the performance of his/her duties, ② whether it can be deemed that the relevant worker is practically incorporated into a third party’s business, such as the formation of a working group with the worker employed by the third party and the direct work, ③ whether the right to select workers to be placed in the work or to decide the number of workers, education and training, work and recess hours, leave, inspection of work attitude, etc., ④ whether the purpose of the contract is determined specifically as the performance of limited work, and the work performed by the relevant worker is distinct from the work performed by the third party, and whether the work performed by the relevant worker is professional and technical, ⑤ Whether the employee is equipped with an independent business organization or facility necessary to achieve the purpose of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93707, Feb. 26, 2015).

B. Specific determination

In full view of the following circumstances and the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence as above, and each of the above facts, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the agency employed the plaintiffs and had an employment relationship with the worker dispatch for the defendant under the direction and order of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(i)the nature of the sales agency contract and whether the agency has an independent business organization or facility necessary to achieve the purpose of the contract;

A) The agency is granted the power of representation to sell motor vehicles from the defendant to the customer under the name of the defendant (Articles 1 and 3 of the sales agency contract), and the defendant establishes the selling price and conditions of the motor vehicle (Article 14 of the sales agency contract), and the agency is prohibited from selling the motor vehicle of a motor vehicle manufacturer who is not the defendant (Article 11(1)2 of the sales agency contract). The sales agency contract has the substance of the sales agent contract or other similar contract under the Commercial Act (see Articles 87 and 89 of the Commercial Act).

B) As seen earlier, an agency directly owns or owns a building necessary for the agency’s operation by leasing it, and prepares and holds office supplies, such as books and computers, at its own expense.

C) According to the sales price and sales conditions set by the Defendant, an agency was able to engage in individual promotional activities for its own cost and account, and without the Defendant’s involvement, the agency was able to provide additional incentives or rewards to car masters with excellent sales performance in the agency to the car masters in addition to sales commission, and there was also a case where the car masters was able to favorably determine the payment method of sales commission. The agency may separately determine the payment method and payment rate for the car masters, and the Defendant does not participate in this. The car masters and the agent are important issues. In determining the payment method and payment rate of sales commission, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not participate in the sales commission and the agent individually negotiates or otherwise determines it between the car masters and the agent, the agent has the identity of the business operator distinct from the Defendant.

D) Around 1998, an agency owner organized an agency association with the aim of protecting the rights and interests of the agency owners, promoting friendship among the agency owners, etc. The agency association held a board of directors every month to report the details of its activities to the agency, and combined the agency’s opinion, and delivered the requirements of the agency to the Defendant. It is sufficient to evaluate that the agency’s activities conducted to enhance substantial negotiating power and protect the rights and interests of the agency by organizing an association by an individual agency with weak negotiating power than the Defendant, and delivering the requirements to the Defendant. It is sufficient that the agency was not merely a subordinate agency, internal organization, or labor agency of the Defendant, but also an independent business entity and the Defendant’

E) Meanwhile, the Defendant accepted the demand of the Defendant trade union and limited the agency’s central transfer, and rejected or delayed the agency’s request for the registration of car masters. This act constitutes the Defendant’s act of unfairly interfering with the business activities of other enterprisers under Article 3-2(1)3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and thus, was subject to a penalty surcharge imposed by the Fair Trade Commission.

F) In light of the foregoing, an agency is an independent business entity that conducts its own business with its own cost and effort in a manner that receives fees according to the sales performance without any basic level through the opening of a store, recruitment of car masters, promotional activities, etc., and taking measures such as delaying or refusing the registration of car masters and restricting the central transfer of the agency, etc., restricting part of the agency’s autonomous management rights or business rights can only be subject to the application of Article 3-2(1)3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act or Articles 6 through 12 of the Act on Fair Trade in Agency Transactions, and it is difficult to evaluate that the agency was merely a formal and nominal business entity who did not have the substance as an agent.

2) Whether the Defendant directly or indirectly directed and ordered the Plaintiffs by giving binding instructions on the performance of duties itself.

A) Although the Defendant did not directly issue a binding direction and order to the car masters, such as ordering the car masters to directly perform the duties, as seen earlier, the Defendant sent a cooperation letter to the agency or issued a work guidance, etc. The car masters who concluded a sales service contract with the agency have no choice but to indirectly be bound by such Defendant’s instruction and order. However, even if the car masters bears de facto duties to comply with the Defendant’s instruction and order with the Defendant’s agency, it is determined in Articles 4 and 8(1)3, etc. of the sales service contract as the car masters’s duties under Article 4 and Article 8(1)3, etc. of the sales service contract. Therefore, if the car masters violates the Defendant’s instruction, the car masters’s responsibility and damage agent is the burden of the Defendant’s agent, and thus, the car masters’s duty to comply with the Defendant’s instruction is merely a contractual duty on the agent’s duty to have the counterparty, who is the contracting party, take care

B) The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant directed and ordered the Plaintiffs, directly or indirectly, by imposing an instruction and order on an agency. However, as seen below, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant requested the trustee, who is the contracting party, to comply with the contractual obligations within the scope of entrustment, or given orders or orders incidental thereto, and the Defendant directly or indirectly directed and ordered the car masters. The direct or indirect command and order on the dispatched workers recognized in the worker dispatch relationship means that the user company directly or indirectly provided labor from the dispatched workers and connected with the provision of labor, and that the dispatched workers are directed and ordered. In short, even if the business operator imposes contractual obligations on the contracting party or the subcontractor, or the third party, who is under the contractual relationship therewith, indirectly and indirectly bound by the above contractual obligations and requirements, it cannot be concluded that the business operator received the work of the dispatched workers or that the dispatched workers were directed and ordered by the Defendant, who directly or indirectly, in order to directly and indirectly received the Defendant’s instructions and orders on the car masters’s agency duties beyond the extent of direct and indirect delivery of the Defendant’s orders or orders on the car masters’s agents.

C) According to Article 11 of the Sales Agency Contract, a car masters’s act of entrusting sales rights to a person who has not been registered with the Defendant pursuant to the provision of Article 11, the act of selling other vehicles that are not the Defendant, the act of removing the Defendant’s vehicle located in a foreign country, the act of getting exempted from the sales conditions set by the Defendant, the act of double registration with the Defendant, and the act of double registration with the same business purpose as that of the Defendant. These obligations are prohibited: ① (i) prevent a person who has not been registered with the Defendant from committing a tort by undermining the Defendant’s car masters, or (ii) prevent a person who has not registered with the Defendant from taking out the vehicle located in a foreign country without undergoing the Defendant’s approval or separate procedures (Prohibition of Entrustment of Sales Rights) or preventing the Defendant’s trade secrets from being known to a competitor or unfair competition (Prevention of Sale from other vehicles and double registration); and (iv) ensure that the Defendant’s trade secret complies with the sales conditions set forth by the Defendant (Prohibition of double Registration) is justifiable for this purpose; and (ii) impose the Defendant’s contractual obligation on an agent or agent.

D) The Defendant urged the agency to achieve the sales target by presenting the sales target to the agency, and given a warning when the sales performance shows poor performance. However, according to Article 8 of the Act on Fair Transactions in Agency Transactions, it is prohibited from compelling the supplier to present the goals of the agency transaction and to achieve them. However, in light of Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 4 of the Designation and Public Notice of the Types and Criteria for Unfair Trade Practices Prohibited in Agency Transactions, it is prohibited from doing any act that interferes with the normal operation of the agency, such as cancelling the agency contract or suspending the supply of the goods, on the ground that the agency failed to achieve the sales target, and it cannot be deemed unfair for the Defendant to present the sales target to the agency. Furthermore, even if the agency failed to achieve the sales target, since the Defendant did not put the sales target at a disadvantage to the manager, it is difficult to say that the Defendant directed and ordered the manager merely because the Defendant presented the sales target to the agency and urged to achieve it.

E) Although the Defendant issued the agency instructions on promotional activities or received reports on promotional activities, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant issued the instructions on promotional activities or supported promotional activities to the customer by using various business methods. In order to support such activities, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant issued the instructions on promotional activities or rendered the instructions on promotional activities to the agency to be contrary to the substance of the contract of the agent. The Defendant issued the instructions on promotional activities to the agency, and specifically, determined by the agency as to which the car masters would carry out promotional activities.

F) The Plaintiffs did not use only the computer network or computer program provided by the Defendant, and did not use individual computer networks or computer programs. However, given that the computer network and computer program provided by the Defendant are useful aspects to assist car masters in performing their duties, the Defendant’s provision of necessary computer networks and computer programs to agents and car masters for the smooth performance of automobile sales business cannot be deemed as part of the Defendant’s command and order against the agents or car masters. In addition, even if the Defendant prohibited the use of a private program and sanctions the relevant agency in the event of its violation, such measures are aimed at preventing the entry of customer’s personal information into the private program to prevent the divulgence of the said personal information (see, e.g., Article 19(4) of the Framework Act on Consumers, Article 26(4) of the Personal Information Protection Act), the purpose of which is to prevent such personal information from being leaked to the outside (see, e.

G) The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant issued a specific direction and order to the car masters via the agency management guidelines distributed to the agency. However, the agency management guidelines include the Defendant’s production and distribution of information or data to refer to the agency management, such as knowledge related to the lease of commercial buildings, the matters to be considered in employing car masters, the organization management, human resources development, and tax treatment in order to support the agency’s management. The content of the guidelines does not per se impose an obligation on the agency or make a binding instruction, and the car masters is not bound by the contents indicated in the agency management guidelines.

H) The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant directly directed and supervised car masterss by determining all the matters related to the operation of the exhibition center, namely, hours of operation of the exhibition center and holidays, such as signboards, etc., type and number of exhibit vehicles, media type, employee uniforms, and the exhibition environment, etc. However, the foregoing guidelines address the matters to be observed by the agency in operating the exhibition center, rather than those to be observed by the car masters in accordance with the above guidelines, such as the time of displaying signboards and lights, etc., type and number of exhibition vehicles, the type and number of exhibition vehicles, and the exhibition environment, rather than those to be observed by the car masters, such as the car masters’s uniforms, etc., rather than those to be observed by the agency in operating the exhibition center. Accordingly, even if the Defendant issues or delivers instructions to the agency in connection with the operation of the exhibition center, this is not a truster under a sales agency contract, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant issued direct direction and order to the car masters.

(E) Furthermore, even if the car masters violated the matters stipulated in the sales agency contract, or the direction, order, and business guidelines on the Defendant’s agency, the Defendant did not take a direct disciplinary measure against the car masters. Even if the Defendant took a disciplinary measure against the agent, the agent’s measures are only based on the sales service contract between the agent and the car masters, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have taken a direct disciplinary measure against the car masters.

3) Whether the plaintiffs can be deemed as having formed one working group with the employees belonging to the defendant and actually incorporated into the defendant's business

A) The agency performed its business activities in the area of each party, and the car masters were also affiliated with the agency and carried out the automobile sales business. Thus, the car masters cannot be deemed to have carried out the automobile sales business with the Defendant’s regular employees, including the sales employees.

B) Although sales employees perform the same or similar duties as car masters, rather than sales employees and car masters perform the automobile sales business by forming a single work group, they are merely engaged in the automobile sales business at the agency or direct store to which they belong, and in fact, sales employees and car masters were in business competition. In fact, the Defendant’s trade union comprised of sales employees demanded the Defendant to strongly regulate the car masters or to strengthen the regulation and guidance management of the agency or car masters (Evidence A No. 92). In addition, the Defendant restricted the agency’s central relocation in order to prevent the overlap of the business area with the direct store when the agency transfers the base.

C) The Plaintiffs asserted that the car masters and sales employees are engaged in the same automobile sales business in accordance with the Defendant’s business guidelines, and all car masters and sales employees are informed on the Defendant’s official website, and that the agents and car masters were actually engaged in the Defendant’s business by forming one group within the Defendant’s domestic business headquarters and regional headquarters and performing duties identical or similar to direct stores. However, even if the Defendant and the agents concluded a sales agency contract and run an individual business with the same purpose as “automobile sales,” it is difficult to evaluate that the agents are incorporated into the Defendant’s business solely on the basis of such circumstances as the fact that the sales agency frequently cooperates with the Defendant’s agencies for the purpose of realizing that purpose.

(iv) whether the agency has independently exercised its power to select workers or to determine the number of workers, education and training, working and recess hours, leave, inspection of work attitude, etc.;

A) The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant, through a labor-management agreement with the trade union that is composed of sales employees, determined the number of employees, employment requirements, grounds for disqualification, etc. of car masters as well as the Plaintiffs, and exercised the authority to determine the recruitment of car masters based on this. However, in the agency, the agent voluntarily decided or implemented the sales service contract by recruiting car masters, and the Defendant merely conducted the procedure for examining whether the car masters satisfies the qualification requirements prescribed in the sales agency agreement, and granting the Defendant’s power to sell the car. Although the Defendant did not register or delayed the car masters as requested by the agency under the labor-management agreement, it is difficult to view that the Defendant directly decided the recruitment and employment of car masters even if such act is subject to the Fair Trade Act or the Fair Trade Act, as seen earlier, even if the Defendant’s act can be subject to the Fair Trade Commission Regulation and Fair Trade Act. Furthermore, among the car masters, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant directly participated in the recruitment and employment of car masters (No. 13-3).

B) The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the Defendant exercised the personnel rights to the car masters by determining whether to promote the car masters or notifying the list of persons to be promoted. However, the Defendant did not decide whether to promote the car masters, but granted the right to use the “name of a class” to the car masters or selected such persons. The above class was merely a position that the car masters could externally use while carrying out his/her business activities, and was irrelevant to the actual position of the car masters. In other words, the car masters was paid only sales allowances based on the vehicle sales performance by the agency regardless of the above class, and there was no difference between the sales staff and the sales staff.

C) The Defendant, through an agency, provided education to the car masters. The contents of the above education are mainly about the detailed information, sale conditions, sales price, vehicle delivery procedure, etc. of vehicles sold by the car masters, vehicle log technique, and the matters to be observed by the car masters under the sales agency contract or sales service contract. However, the above education contents are about the contents of the above education, such as the car masters’s duty to be familiar with the agent, or the matters to be observed under the sales service contract with the agent, while entering into a sales service contract with the agent, while selling the Defendant’s vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant’s education seems to be limited to the level of information transmission on the product information or the minimum matters to be observed under each of the above contracts.

D) The Defendant did not supervise or confirm the root of the car masters. The car masters often worked in a more place than the agency’s work due to the nature of the work. In the case where the car masters worked in the agency, when and where the car masters worked in the outside, it appears that the agency itself or the car masters decided on where the car masters worked in the outside. Moreover, without the Defendant’s involvement, whether the car masters used the leave, when the car masters used it, and when the car masters used it, it appears that the car masters approved it by the agency itself or prepared the criteria for one response.

E) Whether to enforce the obligation to attend an inquiry about the car masters, the confirmation of the car masters attending the inquiry, and the designation of the worker on duty, etc. at the agency’s own discretion or performed by the agent, and on this basis, the Defendant did not directly participate in the designation of the worker on duty by demanding the designation of the worker on duty or the change of the list. Although the Defendant set the hours for operating the worker on duty under the sales agency’s contract, it is intended to provide uniform services at the direct store and the agency, which does not constitute a direct command and order to the car masters.

(v) whether the purpose of the contract is determined to have a specific scope as a performance of limited work, and whether the work assigned to the employee is distinct from the work assigned to the employee of the Defendant and has expertise and expertise in such work.

A) The purpose of the sales agency contract is to determine only the agency’s implementation of the “business of selling motor vehicles of the Defendant” and the agency was not instructed by the Defendant to perform its separate duties except incidental business for the sale of motor vehicles, such as promotional activities for motor vehicle sales.

B) The car masters engaged in the same or similar business with the sales members. However, the agency and the direct sales store generally shared the sales area by taking into account the expected regional demand, or shared the sales promotion area differently. Even if the sales area overlaps, the agency and the direct sales store are more likely to distinguish the duties of the car masters belonging to the agency and the sales store belonging to the direct sales store, as seen earlier, because they are competing with the sales area, rather than in cooperative relations.

C) In addition, while the Defendant designated the selling prices and conditions of sales or issued instructions on promotional activities to the agency, the agency and the car masters sold cars by inducing the customers and obtaining the customers’ awareness of their own promotional activities. In such a process, the agency and the car masters need to have management ability, motive granting capacity, and personal business capacity of the car masters. Therefore, it can be said that the car masters had expertise in the car sales business.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claim and conjunctive claim are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Judges Choi Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The car sales services contract that the car masters concludes with the agency owner refers to “service allowances” but is referred to as “sales allowances” for convenience.

Note 2) The Defendant and the agency use the name “car masters” for those who belong to the agency and carried out automobile sales business, and thus, the Defendant and the agency refer the automobile sales employees of the agency to “car masters.”

Note 3) In order to distinguish the automobile sales staff belonging to the Defendant’s direct control point from the car masters, the sales employees are referred to as “sales employees.”