A. The defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of debt collection and credit investigation upon obtaining permission from the Financial Services Commission in accordance with the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act.

B. The Plaintiffs entered into a service agreement with the Defendant for claims collection business (i.e., a delegation agreement for claims collection business from around 2010, and a delegation agreement from around 2011; hereinafter “instant contract”).

Plaintiff

A worked as a debt collector from September 3, 2010, and from July 8, 2011 to February 28, 2017, Plaintiff B retired while serving as a debt collector.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 2 through 5 (including each number in the case with a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiffs, notwithstanding the form or title of the instant contract, were practically subordinate to the Defendant and provided labor. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act to the Plaintiffs. 2) The Plaintiffs are merely individuals who conduct claims collection business upon delegation by the Defendant and receive fees according to their performance.

The defendant does not manage the plaintiffs' attitude or give specific directions on debt collection affairs.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs do not constitute workers under the Labor Standards Act.

B. Determination 1) Whether the Plaintiffs are workers under the relevant legal doctrine should be determined depending on whether the form of a contract is an employment contract or a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages in substance, rather than whether the contract is an employment contract. Whether there is a subordinate relationship in this context shall be determined.