The defendant is a company engaged in credit investigation business, debt collection business, etc. with the permission of the Financial Services Commission under the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act.

B. The Plaintiffs entered into a delegation agency contract or delegation contract with the Defendant on the first day of each service period indicated in the attached retirement allowance calculation table, and the persons retired at the end of the above service period while taking charge of claims management and collection that the Defendant accepted from the creditors during the above service period.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs were employed by the defendant company in the form of delegation contract, but they constitute workers who provided labor to the defendant in a subordinate relationship with the purpose of wages, such as specific direction and supervision by the defendant in performing their duties.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to each corresponding amount stated in the separate retirement allowance calculation sheet as retirement allowance under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act and compensation for delay.

B. The defendant did not manage the plaintiffs' probation or issue specific work instructions in relation to debt collection, and only provided work places and fixtures so that the plaintiffs can smoothly perform delegated affairs.

The plaintiffs received fees in proportion to debt collection performance without the basic pay or fixed pay, and it cannot be viewed as wages due to the fact that the amount is large for each plaintiff and each period, and that the amount is determined depending on the quantity and quality of labor provided.

Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be regarded as a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and they are the defendants.