[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

B Card Corporation

Law Firm Governing Do, Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] The Head of Si/Gun/Gu

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The plaintiffs were employed by the defendant company on the first day of each service period in the column of "service period" as stated in the attached Table 2 【Retirement Allowance Calculation Table. The plaintiffs retired from office on the last day of each service period.

B. The Defendant Company entered into a contract with bond managers including the Plaintiffs on the management of overdue credit card holders, collection of overdue credit card payments, and provision of services incidental thereto under the name of delegation contract. The main contents are as follows.

(1) A (referring to the plaintiffs; hereinafter the same shall apply) The services to be handled under this Agreement include the services related to the collection of claims delegated by this Agreement (referring to the defendant company; hereinafter the same shall apply) and all the services related thereto. (2) The fees paid by Gap to Eul shall be in conformity with the criteria for the payment of the fees to the delegated person as determined by Gap: Provided, That if there is any change in the criteria for the payment of the fees to the principal agent, it shall be substituted by Gap's prior notification without the renewal of a separate contract. Eul may not demand any expenses or remuneration for any purpose other than the above fees.

(3) B shall, in principle, independently perform its duties by reasonable and fair means so that it does not conflict with the relevant laws and regulations in the course of performing its duties. However, if it is necessary, B may give instructions related to efficient performance of its duties to B, and if necessary, it may have him/her perform its duties by setting a certain period of time and place. (4) Where it falls considerably short of the average recovery performance calculated by A, and it is difficult to perform its duties any longer, the contract may be terminated notwithstanding the term of the contract.

C. As above, the Plaintiffs, who were entrusted by the Defendant Company with the management of the members in arrears with credit cards and the collection of overdue payments, received a certain rate of fees from the Defendant Company for the collection of their claims without setting the basic pay or fixed pay, and the business income tax was withheld for the fees that the Defendant Company paid to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs did not apply to workplace medical insurance, employment insurance, industrial accident insurance, etc.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs were employed by the defendant company in the form of delegation contract, but they were provided with labor between the defendant company and the defendant company, such as specific direction and supervision by the defendant company in performing their duties. Therefore, the plaintiffs constitute workers subject to the application of the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiffs.

I asserts that this case is.

B. Determination as to whether the plaintiffs are workers under the Labor Standards Act (1)

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 15 (including each number):

(A) The Plaintiffs, as a bond manager of Defendant Company, conducted claims collection business and related incidental services, such as investigating assets against debtors in arrears with the payment of credit card loans, and demanding payment by telephone, visit, etc. (b) The Plaintiffs were ordinarily present at the office offered by Defendant Company at around 00:0, and then at the inquiry into the presence of the team leader or the strike leader. From around 19:30 to 21:0, the Plaintiffs were retired from the office at around 19:30, after making a show for the performance report and various evaluations, and for the planned summer, etc., the Defendant Company designated the collection activities to be performed by the bond item and managed the claims to the Plaintiffs. (c) The Plaintiffs appeared at the designated place in the office provided by the Defendant Company, so that the Defendant Company received the status cards, employee cards, and computerized bond management cards, etc., and made an appraisal of the Plaintiffs’ performance records, such as the collection of claims, based on the order of collection of claims and the collection of claims.

(E) The Defendant Company provided the Plaintiffs with service instruction and education on the methods and procedures for recovery of claims, such as business liaison, credit crossing method, summary of credit management, and method of performing its duties.

(F) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, Defendant Company: (a) provided employees with excellent performance under the name of “recept of fixed pay for the Plaintiffs; (b) provided employees with poor performance in distribution of claims; and (c) provided employees under the Labor Standards Act even if the contract was terminated, it should be determined depending on whether the employer provided employees with labor for the purpose of their own wages, rather than whether the contract form is an employment contract. Whether there is a subordinate relationship with the employer, such as the rules of employment or service, and whether the employer is subject to reasonable direction and supervision; (c) whether the Plaintiffs were subject to the duty of care and supervision; and (d) whether the Plaintiffs were subject to such duty of care and supervision; and (e) whether the Plaintiffs were able to independently engage in business on their own by owning equipment, raw materials or tools; and (e) whether the Plaintiffs were able to engage in such business on their own on their own, and whether there is any need for reasonable direction and supervision, including the creation of profits and losses arising from the provision of labor.

(C) Meanwhile, as alleged by the Defendant Company, the rules of employment, service regulations, and personnel regulations applicable to regular employees, i.e., the Plaintiffs, and the bond manager paid fees equivalent to a certain percentage of the amount of money collected by the Defendant Company to collect claims, regardless of the amount or time of his/her work provided to collect claims; Defendant Company withheld business income tax on the above fee; Defendant Company withheld business income tax on the above fee; Defendant Company did not pay health insurance, national insurance, employment insurance, industrial accident compensation insurance, or insurance premium to the bond manager; and the fact that the Defendant Company reported on the purchase of the health insurance, national insurance, industrial accident compensation insurance, or did not pay the insurance premium to the bond manager; is merely a situation of ordinary workers which are rapidly increasing or that the Defendant Company, the employer of which is an economically superior position, it is difficult to deny the Plaintiffs’

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act to the plaintiffs.

3. Calculation of the retirement allowances that the plaintiffs should receive;

A. The facts that the plaintiffs except the plaintiff C and D worked in the defendant bank for each corresponding period in the "service period of the "service period of the attached Table 2" column of the "service period of the attached Table 2," and that they received each corresponding amount in the "amount received" column of the same Table for three months prior to the retirement do not conflict between the parties. Considering the overall purport of the arguments, the plaintiffs C worked in the defendant bank for the corresponding period as stated in the "service period of the attached Table 67" column of the "service period of the same Table for three months prior to the retirement," and the facts that the plaintiff D worked in the defendant bank for the corresponding period as stated in the "service period of the same Table" column of the "service period of the same Table for three months prior to the retirement," and the facts that the plaintiffs received the same Table for three months prior to the retirement can be recognized as having been included in the "amount received" column of each retirement allowance of the plaintiffs for three consecutive months prior to the retirement. Thus, the plaintiffs' retirement allowance in the same column of the same Table.

B. Therefore, the defendant bank is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment of the complaint of this case, from the day after the end of each service period indicated in the "service period of the same Table" as the retirement day of the plaintiffs' retirement day to the day after September 6, 2007.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are with merit, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting them.

Judges Hwang Sung-sung

Judges Hong Jin-young