A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8 20% interest per annum from the relevant date to the date of full payment as stated in the plaintiff 8's "sum" column of the attached sheet 1 attached hereto and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% interest per annum from the relevant date to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiff 8's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. A. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against each of the plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 that ordered payment after the next year is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the above plaintiffs the amount of money indicated in the "total" column of the relevant plaintiff's "total amount of prize" in attached Table 1 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the corresponding date to the date of full payment.

B. Each of the above plaintiffs' remaining appeals is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 60% shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder 40% shall be borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The part of the monetary payment under Articles 1-1 (a) and 2-1 (a) may be provisionally executed;

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money in attached Form 2 "total" column and the amount of money calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the corresponding date to the day of full payment as stated in the "calculated Date" column of the same attached Table. (Plaintiff 8 extended the purport of the claim in the trial)

2. Purport of appeal

- Plaintiff 8: Change of the part against Plaintiff 8 in the judgment of the first instance as follows. The Defendant shall pay Plaintiff 8 1) 29,382,091 as well as the interest rate of 20% per annum from December 15, 2012 to the date of full payment.

- The rest of the plaintiffs except for the plaintiff 8 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bs"), the part against the rest of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the rest of the plaintiffs the amount of money indicated in the "total sum of claim amounts" column of attached Table 2 and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the corresponding date to the date of full payment.

- Defendant: The part against the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiff 8 shall be revoked, and the claim against the Plaintiff 8 corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

A. The Defendant is a juristic person established for the purpose of educational service business, etc., and operates a private teaching institute (hereinafter “private teaching institute of this case”) with the substitute 1, 2, and pressure articles in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The Plaintiffs entered into a contract in charge of class, employment contract, delegation of class, and consignment contract with the Defendant, and worked as a language instructor at the instant private teaching institute.

2. Determination on the remaining plaintiffs' claims

A. The parties' assertion

1) The remaining plaintiffs' assertion

The remaining plaintiffs are workers who provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the defendant for the purpose of wages. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining plaintiffs unpaid weekly leave allowances, annual leave allowances, and retirement allowances.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) The remaining Plaintiffs are merely individuals who have entered into a class contract, etc. with the Defendant on an equal footing, and are not workers under the Labor Standards Act.

B) Even if the remaining plaintiffs are workers, the defendant is not obligated to pay unpaid weekly leave allowances, annual leave allowances, and retirement allowances, since it concluded a comprehensive wage agreement with the remaining plaintiffs.

C) The remaining Plaintiffs constitute workers, and even if the Defendant did not conclude a comprehensive wage agreement with the remaining Plaintiffs, the monthly pay that the Defendant paid to the remaining Plaintiffs includes the weekly paid leave allowance. Thus, the Defendant did not pay the remaining Plaintiffs any unpaid paid leave allowance. ② The rest of the Plaintiffs used both a specific working day which the Defendant decided to take a paid leave in lieu of the annual paid leave by written agreement with the labor representative, so there is no unpaid annual paid leave allowance for the remaining Plaintiffs.

B. Determination of the remaining plaintiffs' worker nature

1) Relevant statutes and legal principles

Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "worker means a person who provides labor to a business or workplace for wages regardless of the type of occupation."

The issue of whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act is a contract for employment or a contract for work. Determination of whether a worker has a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages should be made depending on whether the employer provided the worker with work in a subordinate relationship with the employer. Whether the employer has a considerable command and supervision in the course of performing the work, whether the employer designates working hours and working places, whether the employer is bound by the employer, whether the employer is able to operate his/her business on his/her own account, whether the employer is able to own equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc., to create profits through the provision of labor, and cause losses, etc., and whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of work, whether the basic wage or fixed wage was determined, and whether the wage tax was withheld at source, and whether the employer has an exclusive relationship with the employer, and whether the status of the worker has been recognized as a worker under the Act on Social Security System, and whether the employer has a superior status to the above 207 Supreme Court Decision 200Da7820, supra.

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) Selection process of instructors

The Defendant concluded a training contract with instructors selected through certain procedures for about two months, and had instructors observe the lecture of other instructors during the training period. After the end of the training period, the Defendant entered into a regular training contract with instructors, and the form of lecture fees paid to each instructor is divided into the form of guaranteeing a certain annual salary on fixed pay, proportional pay, or proportional pay.

B) Conclusion of a contract in charge of classes, etc.

The remaining plaintiffs worked in the educational institute of this case, the name of the contract entered into with the defendant at issue in this case, the date of conclusion of the contract, and the terms of the remuneration agreement by contract period, etc. are as follows, and the payment rate of remuneration in the contract in charge of class, delegation, and entrustment contract was designated by the defendant.

According to the 1.20-13-13-14-2-3-14-2-64-14-14-24-14-14-2-64-14-16-14-14-14-7-14-14-2, monthly 20-15-6-14-2, monthly 20-14-15-6-2, monthly 20-15-6-14-2, monthly 20-14-15-6, monthly 20-14-15-6, monthly 20-15-14-2, monthly 20-15-6, monthly 20-15-2, monthly 201-14-2, monthly 201-16-14, monthly, 2014-15-2, monthly, 201-14

The main contents of each class contract, employment contract, delegation and entrustment contract are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 수업담당계약 제2조(목적) 학원사업운영자인 A(피고)는 “학원의 설립 운영 및 과외교습에 관한 법률”에 따라 설립된 학원을 운영 중이며 일정한 금전적 보상을 제공하는 조건으로 A의 일정한 수업을 B(강사)가 담당하도록 맡기고자 한다. 제4조(업무 범위 및 업무조건) ① B는 “학원의 설립 운영 및 과외교습에 관한 법률”에 규정된 법적 허용 기간 내에 A가 B에게 배정하는 영어수업을 담당할 것에 상호 합의한다. ② 제4조 제1항에 언급된 수업 배정은 다음과 같다. 1. 피고의 커리큘럼과 수업교육모델에 따른 수업 2. 수업을 하기 위해 필요한 관련 세미나와 연구 활동에 참여 3. 피고와 수업시간표 계획(B는 시간, 일정, 장소 등에 관한 수업계획서, 강의시간표를 A에게 제출하여 타 교사들과 수업이 겹치는 일이 없도록 해야 한다.) 4. 학생들이 수업을 빠지는 일이 없도록 학생 관리와 관련하여 A와 협력해야 한다. 5. 수업 전과 후의 사업 프레젠테이션에 참여하여 일일 수업 상태를 점검한다. 6. 수업관리와 직접적으로 관련된 여러 행정업무를 수행한다(B는 정기적으로 학부모들과 연락하여 학생의 출석상황, 학업성적 및 수업태도 등을 알린다. 학생의 출석 상황, 태도, 성적에 큰 변화가 있을 경우, B는 A에게 이러한 변화를 알린다). 7. 원활한 수업운영을 위해 사업회의와 분기별 학부모-교사 모임에 참석한다. 8. 교육능력 향상을 위한 훈련과정에 참여한다. ③ B가 제4조 제1, 2항에 규정된 B의 의무를 이행하도록 지원하기 위해 A는 B에게 수업과 연구 활동에 필요한 교실, 시설, 책상 및 기타 장비, 사무용품(화이트보드 마커와 지우개만 해당)을 제공하고, B는 이를 잘 활용하기 위해 최선의 노력을 한다. ④ 수업 수 : B는 강의시간표와 같은 수업일에 수업시간에 대하여 상호 합의해야 하고, 의무를 이행하기 위해 정상근무시간 내에 A와 상의할 수 있는 시간을 정한다. B는 달리 합의하지 않는 한, 상호 합의한 수업 시간을 준수하며 수업 시간을 어길 경우, 이 계약이 종료될 수도 있다. ⑤ B는 수업결과를 A에게 보고한다. ⑥ B는 상호 합의한 수업 시간표를 준수하고, A의 학년도 일정을 고려하여 휴가를 사용한다. 제5조(B의 자격요건) ③ 관련 규정에 따라 B는 자체 비용 부담으로 노트북 컴퓨터나 음향 장비와 같은 수업에 필요한 장비를 조달 또는 준비한다. 제6조(담당하게 되는 업무의 독립적 특성) ① 이 계약 조건에 따른 수업을 위해 B는 자신의 지식과 노하우를 독립적으로 활용한다. ② 필요한 수업자료와 관련하여 A와 B는 상호 논의하여 결정한다. ③ B는 A의 수익에 영향을 끼칠 수도 있는 경우라면 어떠한 것이든 A와 상의한다. 제7조(B의 의무) ① 교육결과에 대한 책임 : B는 A가 제공하는 학생들에게 수업제안서 또는 수업계획서를 제공하고 수업의 결과에 전적으로 책임을 진다. ② B는 B의 대리인으로서 특정한 부분적 업무를 처리 할 수 있는 조력자(개인 조교)를 고용할 수도 있으며, B는 조력자에게 직접 지시를 하여 관리하고 전적인 관리 책임을 가진다. 단, 조력자는 B의 수업의 일부를 직접 담당하여 가르칠 수 없다. 제8조(A의 책임) ① A는 B에게 시설(교실)과 학생들을 제공할 책임이 있다. ② A는 기관의 관리 및 기타 일반 운영에 대한 책임(회계 관련 사무업무 포함)을 가진다. ③ A는 기관의 기타 운영(시설운영, 유지보수, 청소, 세금, 공과금, 난방, 냉방요금 납부)에 대한 책임을 가진다. 제9조(강의료 및 수업료 배분 조건) ① B의 강의료는 피고의 운영 및 교육기관에 신고되는 학생 수업료를 위한 일반 비용을 고려한 원칙에 따라 결정된다. ② 이 계약상의 B의 강의 업무에 대하여 A는 B에게 이 계약서 부록으로 첨부된 수업료 배분 계약서에 명시된 조건에 따라 수업료 배분 비율에 근거한 금액을 지급한다. ③ A가 지급한 서비스료에서 발생하는 모든 세금 및 공과금, 기타 소득 및 다른 기관에서 얻은 서비스료는 B가 부담한다. ④ 강의료 지급일은 학생등록기간과 겹치지 않도록 정해야 하며, 원칙적으로 매월 마지막 날로 하고, A는 B가 지정한 은행계좌로 강의료를 이체한다. 강의료 지급방식 및 지급일은 양측 당사자들이 변경에 합의한 경우 변경가능하다. ⑤ B의 과실로 학생의 수업료를 환불해야 하거나 등록이 취소 또는 만료될 경우, B는 교육기관 수업료 환불정책에 따라 A에게 해당 금액을 환불한다. 제10조(훈련 및 공동업무) ① 효율적인 수업 업무를 위해 A와 B는 수업 관련 회의에 참여하여 정보를 서로 교환한다. 단, 회의 및 훈련 요청을 어느 한쪽 당사자가 할 수 있으나 양측 당사자 모두 이에 동의해야 한다. ② 통일된 체계적인 수업관리와 효과적인 커뮤니케이션을 위해 A와 B는 상호 합의하고 비용을 함께 부담하여 주임교사 또는 대표교사를 선정하고 이에 대한 상세사항은 이 계약서와 별개로 결정한다. ③ B는 A의 여러 대외적 활동에 A와 함께 참여하고 상호 사업성장을 위해 필요한 책임(학생선정, 컨퍼런스, 정보교환 모임 등)을 담당한다. ④ A는 학생 평가 결과, 학부모와 면담 결과 등과 같은 정보를 제공하도록 B에게 요청할 수 있으며, 요청을 받은 경우 B는 A에게 최대한 상세하게 정보를 제공한다. 제13조(영업 기밀 보호 및 비경쟁 계약) ① 이 고용계약에 따라 고용되어 있는 동안 B는 A의 영업 기밀(교육시스템, 노하우, A가 만든 모든 시험자료 등 A의 소유 자산으로 간주되는 모든 정보 및 재산, 학생 및 학부모의 모든 개인 정보)을 제3자에게 공개하지 않는다. 이 조항은 이 고용계약이 종료된 이후에도 효력을 가진다. ② B는 A의 고용기간 동안 습득한 A의 영업 기밀을 활용하여 A와 유사한 사업을 시작하는 일에 관여할 수 없으며 한국 또는 다른 나라에서 A의 경쟁사 사업을 직간접적으로 지원할 수 없다. ③ B는 A의 고용 하에 있는 동안 획득한 모든 정보와 노하우가 A의 중요한 자산이며 영업 기밀임을 인지하여 A의 학원이 있는 곳이나 A의 학원 부근에 교습소나 공부방 영업을 하지 않을 것에 합의한다. 이 조항은 이 고용계약 종료 후 2년 동안 구속력을 가지고 유효하며 "A 학원 부근“은 A의 영업지로부터 반경 5킬로미터 이내의 지역을 말한다. ⑤ A와의 고용계약 만료 후 B는 A의 현재 재학 중인 학생, 휴학 중인 학생, 2년 이내에 A 학원에서 나간 A의 이전 학생에게 개인교습을 할 수 없다. B가 전화 또는 이메일 또는 상담으로 상기한 학생들에게 영업행위를 할 경우, 또는 B의 영업행위로 A의 학원에 다니던 학생이 A에 다니지 않게 될 경우, B는 학생당 3개월 수업료에 해당하는 금액을 A에게 지불한다. 제14조(저작권) B가 A의 시설에서 교사활동을 하면서 발생하여 A에게 제출한 비디오 자료, 교재, 연구개발활동을 통한 유형, 무형의 결과물들과 같은 모든 저작권의 보호를 받는 자료들은 A의 재산으로 간주되며 A는 해당 자료들을 사용하고 판매할 권리를 가진다. 단, B의 저작권 보호를 받는 자료들을 위해 B에게 로열티를 지불할 것에 A가 합의한 경우, A는 이 계약 만료 이후에도 로열티를 지불할 의무를 가진다. 제16조(B의 신분 및 세금신고) ① B는 전문 교육자이자 프리랜서이며, 자신의 사회보험을 책임진다. ② A와 B가 상호 합의한 경우, B는 자신의 계산과 판단으로 A에서 가르치는 시간 외에 다른 사업을 할 수도 있다. ③ 이 계약서 제16조 제1항에 따라 B는 사업소득세를 납부할 의무가 있다. A가 회계를 처리하므로 A는 B의 사업소득세를 원천징수하지만 B는 매년 5월에 종합소득세 신고서를 제출해야 한다. 〈부록〉 수업료 배분 약정서 제1조(목적) 이 계약서는 피고(A)가 모집한 학생들이 납부한 수업료와 전문영어교사(B)의 강의업무에 대하여 수업료 배분과 환수비율을 합의하기 위한 것이다. 제3조(배분율) A는 다음과 같은 기준으로 B에게 강의료를 지급한다. ① 이 계약서에 따라 A가 B에게 지급하는 강의료는 B가 가르치는 학생 수의 %에 학생 수업료(실제 수령된 수업료만 해당)를 곱한 금액이며 세금과 프로젝터 사용료가 강의료에 포함된다. ② B의 배분율에 건물관리비, 월별 건물임대료, 신용카드비용이 반영되므로 A는 추가 공통경비를 충당하기 위해 추가 지불을 요구하지 않는다. B의 강의료 ＝ 학생 수 × 학생 수업료 × ⓐ % ⓐ는 공통경비 차감을 반영한다 ③ 학생의 환불요구로 인한 수업료 환불의 경우, 환불되는 금액은 익월 강의료에서 차감될 수 있다.

The contract period between the company and the employee company will be renewed, renewed, or terminated at the end of the contract period of the company, which is included in the table employment contract. The employee company will pay benefits to the company on a yearly basis. The employee company will be limited to the size of classes in accordance with its own choice or consent. (R&Dff) The employee company will be required to operate the company for the following time: from A.m. to B. 1:00 p.m. to 8:0 p.m. if the employee company will work on Sundays, the employee company will not have an obligation to operate the company at its own discretion. If the employee company will be a teacher at any time, the employee company will not have an obligation to operate the company at its own discretion, and if so, the employee company will not have an obligation to operate the company at its own discretion. The employee company will not have an obligation to operate the company at its own time during the contract period. If the employee company will be a teacher, the employee will not have an obligation to operate the company at its own discretion.

Article 1 (Purpose of Contract) of the Annex B(Defendant) is required to undertake the following work process for B (AE) and B. It is also possible for B to teach lessons in BL. The details of the delegation: ① The amount of salaries paid by B is 32% of the total amount calculated by multiplying the tuition fees and the number of students, and B is entitled to pay all taxes (income taxes). ② The scope of expenses to be paid by B is determined by mutual agreement. It is not possible for B to provide any other work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related work-related-related work-related work-related work-related workers.

C) Contents and methods of lectures

(1) The Defendant operated multiple teams according to the grade and level of the students, and the number of each subcommittee was different. The Defendant designated the rest of the Plaintiffs for each subcommittee, the lecture schedule, and the lecture room for each subcommittee. The Defendant allocated the students to each of the above subcommittees according to the results of the level test (written examination and interview).

(2) The remaining plaintiffs using the Defendant’s own production teaching materials (tex ok, APEX) led to lectures according to the Defendant’s academic year and level, and the lecture time (Sylbus) for each subject and each subject (five minutes unit), and the above lecture time (five minutes unit) for each subject, respectively.

(3) The remaining plaintiffs conducted tests related to the contents of lectures against students for a certain period of time set by the defendant using the evaluation sheet produced by the defendant, and given marks to students within a period of time set by the defendant (within one week after the examination was conducted) according to the defendant's standard, and set up a grade sheet according to the method of the defendant's instruction (within two pages, but within one page, points shall be given in one page, and the two pages shall be written in two pages), and issued it to students in an exclusive envelope produced by the defendant.

(4) The CCTV was installed in each lecture room used by the remaining plaintiffs, but the voice was not recorded.

D) Affairs outside the lecture

(1) The rest of the Plaintiffs, according to the counseling schedule set by the Defendant, provided telephone and face-to-face counseling with their parents. After telephone counseling, the head of the management department affiliated with the Defendant confirmed the status of service as CCTV when face-to-face counseling was conducted by the head of the management department affiliated with the Defendant. The rest of the Plaintiffs, according to the Defendant’s instruction, phone call or text message was sent to the parents of students who did not reach a call or record.

(2) The remaining Plaintiffs participated in the peechestest test according to the Defendant’s instruction.

(3) The Defendant confirmed the remaining Plaintiffs’ status of the books and chairs of the lecture room before leaving the lecture each day and ordered the head of the management department to report to the rest of the lecture room if there is any trouble.

E) Rules, regulations, etc.

(1) The Defendant’s rules of employment (established January 1, 2012) exclude instructors from scope of application under Article 2.

(2) When concluding a class contract with the remaining plaintiffs, the defendant had the remaining plaintiffs sign the ILO Rules written by the defendant, and the main contents are as follows.

The ILO Rule 1. 1. Round included in the main text - 50,00 won shall be deducted from each salary at each time during the service at the private teaching institute and R&D department - 10,000 won shall be deducted from each salary at each time during a regular class - 1,00,000 won shall be deducted from each salary at each time regardless of the work sector - 100,000 won shall be deducted from the salary regardless of the category of the work; 2. 3.00,000 won shall be deducted from the total salary for the class from which early retirement or outing has occurred - 6.0,000 won shall be deducted from the private teaching institute’s salary for the class - 3.0,000 won shall be deducted from the private teaching institute’s salary for the class - 4,000 won shall be deducted from the external working hours of the company without the deduction from the external working hours.

(3) The Defendant directed the rest of the Plaintiffs to attend the lecture one hour prior to the start of the lecture, and after the attendance, the Defendant left his lecture room. The Defendant had the rest of the Plaintiffs remain in the fingerprint identification system. The Defendant installed CCTV in the place where the above fingerprint identification system was located, and recorded the rest of the Plaintiffs’ commuting to and from work, and deducted a certain amount from the lecture as provided in the above IMF Rule when the rest of the Plaintiffs were dismissed, early withdrawn, or withdrawn from work.

(4) The defendant set forth and instructed the rest of the plaintiffs to comply with the WUN Do Do list file stored in the business-sharing lux, and the contents are as follows.

3. He/she shall post a telephone call to his/her parents within a given period of four consecutive times and shall read the list and contents of the telephone call to him/her. 5. He/she shall send text messages to his/her low-quality students and follow the message after sending them to him/her. He/she shall always have 1/10 of the number of students at the time of his/her release. He/she shall have an additional 1/10 of the number of students at the time of his/her release. He/she shall have an additional 1/10 of the number of students at the time of his/her release. He/she shall have an additional 1/10 of the number of students at the time of his/her release. He/she shall have an additional 1/10 of the number of students at the time of his/her release. He/she shall have an additional 1/10 of the number of students at the time of his/her release;

(5) The Defendant: (a) prevented the rest of the Plaintiffs from wearing reflectrs, flaps, short strings, etc.; and (b) allowed the rest of the Plaintiffs to wear name plates while on duty.

F) Possession of equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc.

(1) The Defendant provided the rest of the Plaintiffs with lecture rooms (book books, chairers, lockers, etc.), counseling rooms, reproduction equipment and duplication forms, internal network accounts, office-based access authority, and right to use text messages transmission system.

(2) Although the Defendant provided teaching materials to the rest of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant returned them to the Defendant at the time of retirement, and required to reimburse expenses for the failure to pay them, and allowed to use the professional projector installed in the lecture room, but at the monthly lecture, 33,000 won was deducted from the fees for the use of the projector and did not provide the Nowon-do computer.

G) Payment of business income tax

The Defendant withheld the business income tax when paying monthly tuition fees to the rest of the Plaintiffs.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 3 through 15, 17 through 21, 23 through 58, 62, 63, 69, 85 through 87, 91, 92, 95 through 9, 100, 102, 103, 105 and 106, Eul's statements, 4, 8 through 10, 17, 27 (including the number if not mentioned otherwise; hereinafter the same shall apply), the testimony of non-party 2 of the first instance trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in light of the above facts of recognition, the remaining Plaintiffs should be deemed as workers under the Labor Standards Act who provide labor to an employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages.

○ The Defendant determined that the portion of the class according to the academic year and level to be in charge of the lecture, which is the core duties of the rest of the plaintiffs, was very detailed to the extent that the Defendant determined not only the method of preparing and distributing the class table, but also the parents, who are incidental business, consultation method, period, and the part of the class to the measure after consultation.

○ Although the Defendant did not apply the rules of employment called the rules of employment to the instructors including the rest of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant enacted the rules of employment with the nature of the rules of employment or the rules of service, such as sanctions against the other instructors including the Plaintiffs, the provision of equipment, welfare including the support of housing lease deposit, holidays, etc., and ordered instructors to comply with the rules of employment to be observed.

○ The Defendant shall have the remaining plaintiffs observe the lectures of other instructors during the training period, and shall have the other plaintiffs participate in the Speech Prize as part of education and training, check the conditions of the lecture books and chairs before leaving the lecture room and report to the head of the management department. Matters to be observed in relation to lectures, tests, and counseling of parents (e.g., the details of telephone counseling with the parents should be opened to the internal network, if the students are absent on two consecutive occasions, they shall be called to the parents, the examination shall be conducted only for a fixed period, the examination shall be conducted within one week after the examination, and the examination points shall be opened within one week after the examination, and the examination points shall be immediately returned to the students, and the detailed matters shall be observed in the course of performing their duties, such as using the e-mail, etc. The Defendant shall install CCTV in each lecture room, and shall install the CCTV system to have the rest of the Plaintiffs through the CCTV management department, and shall supervise them by way of the CCTV system, such as fingerprint system, and shall also have a considerable direction and supervision.

○ The Defendant set the lecture hours and places of instructors, including the remaining plaintiffs, and even order them to attend one hour prior to the lecture and stay in one’s lecture room, manage their commuting through fingerprint recognition system, and limit their laging, early leave, and going out or impose certain sanctions. Accordingly, instructors, including the other plaintiffs, including the above plaintiffs, were strictly bound at the working hours and places designated by the Defendant.

Not only facilities such as lecture rooms, counseling rooms, etc., but also teaching materials, duplication equipment, and interior network accounts, such as projector, etc., were provided by the Defendant to instructors including the rest of the plaintiffs (no-North Korean computer was provided to the rest of the plaintiffs, but it is difficult to say that it is necessary equipment or tool for lectures. However, it is difficult to say that the rest of the plaintiffs used his/her No-North Korean computer in the course of performing their duties, and it is difficult to put him/her up as a symbol that denies the nature of workers).

Article 7(2) and Article 5(2) of the Contract for Class which was concluded by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 6, and 7 between the Defendant and the other Plaintiffs permit the use of assistants such as teaching assistants at their own expense and responsibility. However, the contract for employment concluded by Plaintiffs 3, and 4 is prohibited from allowing the use of assistants such as teaching assistants (as long as it is limited in the contract for class, etc. with the Defendant, the use of teaching assistants is more restricted in light of the nature of the contract). In fact, it seems that the rest of the Plaintiffs did not employ teaching assistants for the purpose of partially performing their duties, except for the case where Plaintiff 2 takes charge of grading to teaching assistants at his own expense.

○ The rest of the Plaintiffs did not bear any risk of loss arising from the management performance, and Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 4, who entered into an employment contract with the Defendant, do not participate in the distribution of profits arising from the management performance of the instant private teaching institute. However, since Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 6, Plaintiff 7, and Plaintiff 4, who entered into an employment contract with the Defendant for a class-related contract or a class delegation or a consignment contract, are paid an amount according to the pre-determined rate out of monthly tuition fees, they can be deemed to participate in the distribution of profits. However, even in this case, even if the Defendant established multiple classes according to the class year and level of students and designated a squad to be in charge of the said Plaintiffs, the said Plaintiffs’ profit creation is not entirely attributable to their own ability and intent, and it is bound to be unilaterally controlled by the Defendant.

In the case of Plaintiffs 1, 2, 6, 7, and 4, who entered into an employment contract with the Defendant and received fixed remuneration, as well as Plaintiffs 3 and 4, and upon entering into an employment contract or a delegation or entrustment contract, and received monthly remuneration at a rate of monthly tuition fees without basic pay or fixed pay, their remuneration should be deemed as remuneration corresponding to the amount and quality of their own labor, as the Defendant was directed and supervised by the Defendant in relation to the operation of the instant private teaching institute.

Article 6 and Article 5(3) of the Employment Contract prohibit instructors from engaging in the same or similar tasks as the defendant's duties during the contract period with the defendant, and Article 6(3) of the Act prohibits instructors from engaging in the same or similar tasks as the defendant's duties during the contract period, and prohibits instructors from directly or indirectly supporting the competitor of the private teaching institute of this case after the contract period expires, in principle, Article 13 of the Act prohibits them from directly or indirectly supporting the competitor of the private teaching institute of this case after the contract period expires. In fact, it appears that the contract relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant is not different from the employment contract or the delegation or entrustment contract of the private teaching institute of this case. In other words, the contract relationship between the remaining plaintiffs and the defendant seems to be significantly continuous and exclusive.

It seems that the actual working conditions of the plaintiffs 8 and the rest of the plaintiffs, which the defendant recognized that they are labor contract relations, are not different.

On the other hand, Plaintiffs 1, 2, 6, 7, and 4 concluded a contract with the Defendant for the name of the contract in charge of classes or delegation and entrustment of classes with the Defendant, and received monthly remuneration without basic pay or fixed wage. The Defendant withheld business income tax, not earned income tax, from the rest of the Plaintiffs, and the rest of the Plaintiffs appears to have not been recognized as workers under the Acts and subordinate statutes on various social security systems. However, these matters appear to have been unilaterally determined by the Defendant by taking advantage of economic superior status between the rest of the Plaintiffs (the Defendant appears to have voluntarily set the amount of remuneration set at the rate of basic pay or fixed wage as to the tuition fees when concluding a contract with instructors including the rest of the Plaintiffs). Such circumstances alone are insufficient to deny the rest of the Plaintiffs’ worker status, despite of many symbolic marks indicating the worker status.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining plaintiffs a weekly leave allowance, annual leave allowance, retirement allowance, etc.

C. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the comprehensive wage agreement

The defendant asserts that since the defendant concluded a comprehensive wage agreement with the remaining plaintiffs, it does not have a duty to pay weekly leave allowances, annual leave allowances, retirement allowances, etc. to the remaining plaintiffs.

On the other hand, it is also possible for the parties to enter into a comprehensive wage agreement to pay weekly paid leave allowances or annual paid leave allowances in a certain monthly amount on the basis of a pre-determined work period. However, in order for the parties to recognize that a comprehensive wage agreement by implied agreement was established without specifying the purport that it is a comprehensive wage in a collective agreement, employment rules, or employment contract, it is not necessary to accurately calculate actual working hours due to the unique nature of the form of employment, such as where a certain extension, night, or holiday work is difficult, or where a certain extension, night, or holiday work is anticipated, and in light of all the circumstances, such as working hours, the form or level of wages determined, it should be objectively acknowledged that there was an agreement between the employer and the workers not to pay any additional allowance in addition to the fixed monthly pay or daily paid allowance (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1060, Oct. 13, 2016).

In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s employment form is a blanket wage in each class-related contract, employment contract, delegation of classes and entrustment contract, or employment rules that the Defendant concluded with the remaining Plaintiffs. However, in light of the aforementioned facts, it does not necessarily mean that the remaining Plaintiffs’ employment form is difficult to calculate actual working hours or is anticipated to extend, night, or holiday work as a matter of course due to the nature of their work, or the form of surveillance, control, or shift-day system, etc., and it is not objectively recognized that there was an agreement between the Defendant and the rest of the Plaintiffs to not pay any additional allowance or not pay any specific allowance in addition to the fixed monthly wage in light of all circumstances, such as working hours, form or level of wages, etc.

On the other hand, as long as the labor contract remains in existence as a requirement for the termination of a labor relationship, there is no room for the duty to pay a retirement allowance. Thus, even if the total amount of a retirement allowance was entered into a wage payment contract based on the comprehensive wage system, it shall not be effective as a retirement allowance payment under the Labor Standards Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da24699 delivered on March 24, 1998, etc.).

D. Determination on the remaining plaintiffs' claim for unpaid holiday allowances

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the remaining plaintiffs are not obligated to pay weekly holiday allowances, as the monthly wage including the wage for paid holiday has been paid to them.

The monthly wage includes the wage for paid holidays as stipulated in Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act in the case of a monthly wage for workers. In this case, the monthly wage means the wage form in which a certain amount of wage is paid regardless of the number of working days or working hours of a month, which is determined on a monthly basis.

As to the instant case, the fact that the Defendant paid to the rest of the Plaintiffs a certain amount of money or a certain rate of the tuition fees as wages regardless of the number of working days or time hours per month, as seen earlier. Therefore, the rest of the Plaintiffs shall be deemed to have received a monthly wage including the wages for paid holidays from the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is with merit, and thus, the rest of the Plaintiffs’ claim is rejected.

E. Determination on the remaining plaintiffs' claim for unpaid annual leave allowance

1) Recognition of unpaid annual leave allowances

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that there is no obligation to pay the annual leave allowance, since the worker took a leave on a specific working day instead of the annual leave days according to the written agreement with the labor representative.

According to the written agreement with the labor representative, an employer may have workers take a paid leave on a specific working day in lieu of the annual paid leave (Article 62 of the Labor Standards Act). In full view of the purport of the arguments in the health class, Eul’s No. 4, Eul’s No. 11 and 12 with respect to the instant case, the Defendant may take a paid leave on March 8, 2013 in lieu of Non-Party 1 (non-party 1) and annual paid leave days. The Defendant agreed to apply the relevant provisions of the Rules of Employment to a specific working day. Article 38 of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant provides that ① The period of leave shall apply mutatis mutandis to a specific working day. Article 38 of the Rules of Employment (Article 38 of the Rules of Employment) holiday prescribed in the provisions on public holidays of government offices (Article 3,1, 1, 100, 1000, 300,0000,0000,000,000 per year thereafter).

As indicated in the main sentence, whether the Plaintiff’s annual period of 1.20.5 to 20.5 1.5 20.5 20.5 to 20.5 1.5 20.5 20 to 20.6 1.5 1.5 20.5 20 to 20.5 1.5 1.5 20.6 to 20.5 1.5 1.6, 201.5, including Plaintiff 2.5 to 20.5 1.5 20.5 1.6 to 20.5 1.4.5 20 to 20.5 1.5 1.6, 2015, 201.5 to 20.4.5 1.6, 2015, 201.7.31. 20, 2012.31.31.31, 2013 to 2013.5

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 a 7-day, 2-day, 15 days to the plaintiff 4, 14 days to the plaintiff 5, 15 days to the plaintiff 6, and 16-day annual leave allowances to the plaintiff 7.

2) Amount of unpaid annual leave allowances

An employer shall pay an employee the ordinary wages or average wages determined by the rules of employment, etc. for the period of annual leave (Article 60(5) of the Labor Standards Act), and where an employee who has acquired the right of annual leave fails to use the annual leave within one year from the time when the right of annual leave occurred or where it is determined that he/she could not use the annual leave any longer due to such reasons as retirement before one year elapses, he/she may claim an annual leave allowance as the amount equivalent to the number of days of annual leave instead of cancelling the right of leave.

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s rules of employment excludes instructors in Article 2 from the scope of application, and, in fact, does not provide that instructors’ wages are either ordinary wages or average wages during the annual leave period, the rest of the Plaintiffs can seek one of ordinary wages or average wages during the annual leave period. However, since the rest of the Plaintiffs seek average wages for the annual leave period, the Defendant is obliged to pay the rest of the Plaintiffs annual leave allowances calculated by multiplying the number of days of non-use by the average wages at the time of retirement. The calculation details are as shown in attached Table 3.

F. Determination on the remaining plaintiffs' retirement allowance claim

The average wage, which is the basis of calculation of retirement allowances, refers to the amount calculated by dividing the total amount of wages paid for the relevant employee during the three-month period immediately before the date of retirement by the total number of days in that period. Even though it was possible to receive annual paid leave since it was not used during the preceding year of the retirement year, even though it was not used, the annual paid leave allowance is not the remuneration for the work in the first year of the year preceding the year of retirement, but the annual paid leave allowance is not the remuneration for the work in the year of retirement. Thus, if the number of the days in which the annual paid leave or part of the one-year working within the three-month period before the date of retirement is included within the three-month period preceding the date of retirement, only the annual paid leave allowance falling under that part shall be included in the total amount of wages which is the basis of the average wage (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da32631, Dec. 23, 196, etc.).

Since the remaining Plaintiffs’ annual leave usage, retirement date, etc. are as seen earlier, annual leave allowance corresponding to the three-month period prior to the retirement date during the annual leave period of Plaintiffs 4, 5, 6, and 7 shall be included in the total amount of wages to seek the average wage, which serves as the basis for the calculation of retirement allowance, and the specific period shall be as follows. The calculation details are as shown in the column for the average wage among the annual leave allowance of Plaintiffs 3. The calculation details of unpaid retirement allowance for the remaining Plaintiffs are as shown in attached Table 3.

Plaintiff 4. From October 11, 201 to October 10, 2012, to October 31, 2012, to October 31, 2012; or from October 10, 2012 to October 10, 2012, Plaintiff 5.1 to October 10, 201, from October 31, 201, to August 31, 2012; or from August 31, 2012 to August 30, 2015. From August 31, 2012 to August 31, 2013, 201; or from November 29, 2012 to September 31, 2015; or from September 30, 2012 to September 30, 2012 to June 27, 2014 to May 25, 2015;

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the remaining plaintiffs each amount written in the "total sum" column of the "annual allowance" column and "retirement allowance" column for each of the relevant plaintiffs in attached Form 1 and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from the date on which 14 days have passed after the date of retirement to the date of full payment, as requested by the remaining plaintiffs.

3. Determination as to Plaintiff 8’s claim

(a) Basic facts;

1) On November 9, 2012, the Defendant concluded a fixed employment contract with Plaintiff 8, respectively, with an amount of 80,000 won from January 2, 2013 to February 28, 2013; the amount of 4.150,000 won per month minus 3.3% of taxes; and the period from March 2, 2013 to March 1, 2014; and the Defendant entered into a fixed employment contract with Plaintiff 8, respectively.

2) Plaintiff 8 agreed to reduce 1/3 of the existing benefits instead of the lectures scheduled on October 6, 2014 or December 23, 2014 between Defendant and the instant private teaching institute on September 26, 2014, when the period of the fixed employment contract expires, extended one year by March 1, 2015 pursuant to the said automatic renewal clause after the expiration of the period of the fixed employment contract, and served at the private teaching institute of this case.

3) However, around that time, the Defendant demanded Plaintiff 8 to sign a new contract stating the period of the fixed employment contract until December 23, 2014. Accordingly, there was a dispute over the period of the fixed employment contract renewed between the Defendant and Plaintiff 8, and Plaintiff 8 asserted that Plaintiff 8 continued to work in the instant private teaching institute on March 1, 2015, the extended one year as prescribed by the original contract was up to March 1, 2015. However, the Defendant demanded that Plaintiff 8 sign a new contract by asserting that the renewed period of the fixed employment contract was reduced until October 15, 2014 by December 23, 2014. However, Plaintiff 8 rejected such demand. < Amended by Act No. 12847, Dec. 23, 2014>

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 72 through 82, Eul evidence Nos. 25 and 38, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Plaintiff 8’s assertion

(2) On January 2, 2013 to February 28, 2013; (3) probationary contract with the amount calculated by deducting taxes from 3.3% from 4.5% per month; and (4) fixed employment contract with the fixed period of March 2, 2013 to March 1, 2014; (4) monthly allowances of KRW 4,980 per annum [4,00,00 per annum 49,000 x 49,000 x 96.5 x 96.5 x 96.5 x 96.7% per annum; (4) the Defendant, without any justifiable reasons, claimed that the amount of unpaid wages was paid to the Plaintiff during the period of 20.1 to December 23, 2014; and (5) the amount of unpaid allowances of KRW 36.45% per annum 20,000 per annum 28.1 to December 24, 2014.”

C. Determination as to the claim for unpaid wages

According to the settlement agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff 8 on January 2, 2013 to February 28, 2013 and 4.150,00 won per month minus 3.3% of taxes (3,210,440 won) and the settlement agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff 8 on March 2, 2013 to March 1, 2014 (in the absence of separate statement, automatically renewal for one year) respectively; the defendant and the plaintiff 8 agreed to reduce 1/3 of the existing salary from October 6 to December 23, 2014; the defendant's agent's payment contract between the defendant and the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 40,000 won per annum 1 to 30,000 won per annum 40,000 won per annum, and the defendant's payment contract between the defendant 1 and the plaintiff 8, and the defendant 1 to 408,000 won per annum 1 to 40,0005 won per annum.

In regard to this, the defendant's argument that the annual salary stipulated in the periodical employment contract is KRW 46,150,000, but the defendant's employee non-party 1 stated 49,800,000 in the amount included in the contract at the request of the plaintiff 8. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's argument that is different from the written statement of the disposition document [the defendant's argument cannot be accepted in light of the fact that the part on the annual salary stated in the periodical employment contract (Evidence A) is not accompanied by the 46,150,000 and KRW 49,800,000 in the form of the annual salary stated in the periodical employment contract (Evidence A) but the former is deleted and the latter is written by the latter,

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay Plaintiff 8 the unpaid wages of KRW 5,586,135 ( KRW 90,116,706 - KRW 84,530,571) until December 23, 2014, as indicated in the attached Table 4 Plaintiff 8’s wage table. Plaintiff 8 is a person who received KRW 3,525,260 from the Defendant on March 12, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay Plaintiff 8 the unpaid wages of KRW 2,060,875 (= KRW 5,586,135 - KRW 3,525,260).

D. Determination on the claim for wages during the period of unfair dismissal

With the renewal of the fixed employment contract between Plaintiff 8 and the Defendant and the extension of the period until March 1, 2015, Plaintiff 8 agreed to reduce the existing benefits 1/3 instead of the lectures scheduled on October 6, 2014 through December 23, 2014. However, the fact that the reduction of the contract period was made as of December 23, 2014 when there was no mutual dispute as to the reduction of the contract period. In light of the above facts of recognition, the termination of the employment contract made on December 23, 2014 between Plaintiff 8 and the Defendant constitutes dismissal made according to the Defendant’s unilateral intent against Plaintiff 8’s intent. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of justifiable grounds, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the initial amount of tax to Plaintiff 8, the amount of tax to be paid as of December 40, 2015 under the mutual agreement.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the agreed benefits during the period of dismissal were the amount reduced from KRW 4,013,050 per month to KRW 1/3 according to the agreement made on September 26, 2014 between the parties. However, the agreement on the reduction of benefits between the Plaintiff 8 and the Defendant was reached between the Plaintiff 8 and the Defendant that Plaintiff 8 would not be entrusted with the lectures that Plaintiff 8 originally planned to proceed from the instant private teaching institute on October 6, 2014 to December 23, 2014, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the parties agreed on the reduction of benefits or the reduction of the contract period after December 24, 2014. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that interim income should be deducted from the wage during the period of dismissal. In light of the fact that an employee who is dismissed due to a cause attributable to the employer (interim income) gains from his/her other workplace during the period of dismissal from his/her obligation under Article 538(2) of the Civil Act, an employer may deduct the above amount of profit from the amount of wage when paying the wages during the period of dismissal. However, Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall pay a shutdown allowance of 70% or more of the average wage during the period of closure. Thus, in a case where an employee suspends his/her business due to a cause attributable to the employer, an interim income should not be deducted from the amount exceeding the amount of shutdown allowance, and that an interim income should be deducted from the amount exceeding the amount of shutdown allowance. In addition, even if the interim income is deducted from the amount exceeding the amount of shutdown allowance, it is clear that the above interim income should be paid to the pertinent employee for the period and time of 10% of the total amount of wages during the period of 80% 10 to 15%.

Therefore, the Defendant’s wages during the period of unfair dismissal that the Defendant is obliged to pay to Plaintiff 8 are ① KRW 1,035,625, which is the amount equivalent to the wages (i.e., KRW 4,013,050 x 8/31 month; and (ii) KRW 5,708,887, which is calculated by deducting the intermediate incomes within the wage limit from the wage limit during the period from January 1, 2015 to March 1, 2015 (=4,013,050 x (2 + 1/31); 70% for a month x 6,744,512 x but within the scope of KRW 88).

E. Determination as to the claim for advance notice of dismissal

The fact that the labor contract between the plaintiff 8 and the defendant is terminated on December 23, 2014, through the e-mail in the item (i) "Notice of Change of Terms and Conditions of Employment" to the plaintiff 8 on October 6, 2014 is as seen above. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant notified the plaintiff 8 of his dismissal on December 23, 2014, not on March 1, 2015. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant notified the plaintiff 8 of his dismissal on December 23, 2014, and the plaintiff 8's claim on the premise that the defendant did not pre-determination of dismissal, cannot be accepted.

F. Determination as to the claim for weekly holiday allowances

The monthly wage includes the wage for paid holidays as stipulated in Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act in the case of a monthly wage for workers. In this case, the monthly wage means the wage form in which a certain amount of wage is paid regardless of the number of working days or working hours of a month, which is determined on a monthly basis.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant paid a certain amount of monthly wage to the plaintiff 8 regardless of the number of monthly working days or actual working hours.

Therefore, the payment that the plaintiff 8 received is included in the wages for paid holidays under Article 55 of the Labor Standards Act, so the plaintiff 8's claim for this part cannot be accepted.

G. Determination on the claim for annual leave allowances

On March 8, 2013, the Defendant may take a paid leave on a specific working day in lieu of Nonparty 1’s representative of workers and the annual paid leave. The Defendant agreed to apply mutatis mutandis the relevant provisions of the Rules of Employment to a certain working day. Article 38 of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant stipulates that ① a vacation period, ② a public holiday under the provisions on public holidays of government offices, ③ a holiday, ④ a holiday, ④ a holiday leave, ④ a holiday leave, and ④ a case where an employee requests substitution of a annual paid leave after absence, etc. As seen earlier, the Defendant may allow Plaintiff 8 to take a paid leave on a specific working day in lieu of the annual paid leave from March 8, 2013. However, in full view of the arguments stated in the evidence No. 83, No. 15, Plaintiff 8’s use of a paid leave and a substitute leave for at least 15 days each year.

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff 8 used all legal leave and substitute leave, the plaintiff 8's assertion on the premise that there is an annual paid leave not used by the plaintiff 8 cannot be accepted.

H. Determination on a retirement allowance claim

As seen earlier, Plaintiff 8 worked for the pertinent private teaching institute from January 2, 2013, and the term of the labor contract is until March 1, 2015, and the dismissal on December 23, 2014 is null and void. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay Plaintiff 8 retirement allowances corresponding to the period of continuous work from January 2, 2013 to March 1, 2015.

Plaintiff 8 is a person who received KRW 2,212,415 from the Defendant on January 7, 2015, among retirement allowances not paid by the Defendant. Thus, when the Defendant calculates retirement allowances to be paid to Plaintiff 8, it is KRW 5,765,684 as shown in attached Table 3.

I. Sub-committee

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 8 the unpaid wages of KRW 2,060,875, the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from March 1, 2015 to the date of full payment, as sought by Plaintiff 8 with respect to the unpaid retirement allowances of KRW 5,765,684, the total amount of KRW 14,260,384, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 20 per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act, from March 16, 2015, which is the date of retirement under the agreement, to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims, including the plaintiff 8's claims expanded in the trial of the court, are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each remaining claims shall be dismissed on the ground that they are without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part concerning the plaintiff 8 among the judgment of the court of first instance accepted part of the appeal and the claim extended in the trial of the court of first instance, and it is modified in the same manner as the disposition (the defendant's appeal is not accepted). Each of the remaining plaintiffs' appeals are justified within the above recognition scope, and they are dismissed on the grounds that the remaining plaintiffs' remaining appeals

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Dong-hee (Presiding Judge)

(1) The amount claimed by Plaintiff 8 (Plaintiff 5) is KRW 29,382,091 for the calculation of the claim amount (= KRW 11,949,604 for weekly leave allowances + KRW 1,358,268 for annual leave allowances + KRW 6,060,073 for retirement allowances + KRW 10,014,146 for unpaid wage + KRW 29,382,092 for the Plaintiffs’ petition of appeal and the judgment of the first instance.

2) The Defendant deducted 33,00 won per month from the Plaintiff’s salaries, including the rest of the Plaintiffs, as a pro projector user fee, and it seems practically impossible to use the Defendant’s pro projector or to use the projector owned by himself.

(3) As seen earlier, Plaintiff 4 entered into an employment contract with the Defendant, and also entered into a contract for delegation and entrustment of classes.

(4) However, Plaintiff 5 claimed for the payment of damages for delay from December 15, 2014 when the period exceeding 14 days from the date of retirement exceeds 14 days.

5) The name of the contract made between the Plaintiff 8 and the Defendant is “Teachling Act” (i.e., class delegation and entrustment contract), but there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the contract between the Plaintiff 8 and the Defendant constitutes an employment contract, and thus, the contract is deemed as an “regular employment contract.”

(6) Plaintiff 8 sought payment of KRW 6,653,387 on the basis of the amount before deducting the tax amount of KRW 3.3%. Thus, when converting it into the amount after deducting the tax amount, it would be 6,433,825 won (=6,653,387 won x 96.7%).