A. The Defendant is a public interest corporation that implements racing business upon obtaining permission from the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism pursuant to the Bicycle and Motorboat Racing Act (hereinafter “Act”).

B. The Plaintiff was registered as a corrective player from July 200 to November 29, 2009 by the Defendant and participated in the corrective competition executed by the Defendant.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, under the direction and supervision of the Defendant, was on July 200 to November 29, 2009 and retired from office, and the Defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances for the above service period to the Plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff cannot be deemed as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the defendant is not obligated to pay the retirement allowance to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment of this Court - The issue is whether the plaintiff is an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

A. Whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act should be determined in accordance with whether the form of contract is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and whether a worker in substance provided work to an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace.

In this context, whether an employer has a subordinate relationship with the employer, who is subject to rules of employment or rules of service, and who is subject to considerable direction and supervision in the course of performing duties, whether an employer is designated working hours and places and is subject to detention by an employee, whether a labor provider is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account, such as possessing equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc. or having a third party employ and act on behalf of him/her, whether he/she has a risk, such as creation of profit and loss by providing labor, and whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the work itself, or the basic pay or fixed pay.