In regard to this, the Defendant’s contract entered into with the Defendant constitutes a delegation contract for debt collection rather than a labor contract. The Defendant did not have any specific direction and supervision to the Plaintiff during the course of performing his/her duties, and the Plaintiff did not apply the Defendant’s rules of employment, service regulations, etc., and the Plaintiff’s remuneration received by the Plaintiff is merely a performance fee based on the performance of debt collection, and there is no fixed wage or basic wage, and the amount differs significantly depending on each period of payment. Therefore, it cannot be deemed as wages. The Plaintiff did not have been covered by the four-party insurance with the Defendant, and the Defendant only withheld and paid the Plaintiff’s business income tax on the Plaintiff’s fee, etc., and thus

2. Determination

A. Whether the Defendant’s obligation to pay retirement allowances falls under a “worker” under the relevant legal doctrine ought to be determined depending on whether an employee provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace in substance rather than in the form of a contract. Here, whether a subordinate relationship exists should be determined by the employer’s contents of work, and whether the employer has reasonable direction and supervision in the process of performing work under the rules of employment or service (which is subject to the rules of personnel management, etc.), whether the employer designates working hours and working places, whether the employee is detained, and whether the labor provider owns