2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On the date of distribution on February 17, 2012, the Daegu District Court Decision 2010 another District Court Decision 201Hun-Ga 202 and 203 (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case") held by the medical corporation******** on the date of distribution of the compulsory auction at 35510, the date of distribution on February 17, 2012, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule in the order of 214,138,126 won in total to 46, who are the wage creditors (the wage creditors of the last three months and retirement allowances of the last three years) who have priority in the first order, and 1,396,950 won in Busan, 950 won in total, 1,795, 690 won in total, and 128,104,854 won in total to the Defendant, who is the right holder of the right to deliver the building in this case.

B.********* hospital,***** for convenience **** in convalescent (hereinafter referred to as “convalescent”) from July 1, 2008 to March 31, 201, in the auction procedure, the Plaintiff, who served as the head of the hospital, made a demand for distribution of wages and retirement allowances from January 1, 2010 to February 31, 201, was unable to receive dividends at all because it was not recognized as a wage creditor with preferential rights, while the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the distribution that KRW 86,958,904 out of the Defendant’s dividends should be distributed to the Plaintiff, who is the wage creditor with preferential rights.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

As the cause of the claim, the plaintiff asserts that the management right of the hospital*******, the president of the Foundation********, the president of the hospital, and the plaintiff has been employed as the head of the hospital, but this has only been in the form of position and has been employed by the foundation************** under the direction and supervision of the foundation and has been employed by the foundation, and has been in the status of the worker who has received wages of 15 million won per month, and the defendant's dividends amounting to 86,958,904 won (=15 million won + three months + retirement allowances amounting to 41,958,904) should be distributed to the plaintiff, the wage obligee for the last three months's wages and retirement allowances for the last three years.

B. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff constitutes a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act

The Plaintiff’s wages for the last three months (Article 38(2)1 of the Labor Standards Act) and retirement benefits for the last three years (Article 12(2)2 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits) are secured by mortgages, etc., taxes, public charges, and other claims, first of all, ***** whether the Plaintiff is a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act *** whether the Plaintiff provided labor to an employer for the purpose of wages in substance regardless of the form of a contract. As such, even if an officer such as a director or auditor of the company is a director or auditor of the company, the status or name thereof is formal and nominal, and is actually a certain amount of remuneration while providing labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director or the employer, or if an officer of the company received a certain amount of remuneration in consideration of such labor as delegated by the company, such officer constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act. However, an officer of the company subject to the Labor Standards Act cannot be deemed as having provided labor under the direction and supervision of the employer, or constitutes a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act 2920.

However, the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, 10 through 13, 18, and 19 and some testimony of the witness salvists alone are alone ************** was the chief director under the command and supervision of the foundation, or was paid a certain amount of remuneration in return for medical treatment. There is insufficient evidence to find otherwise that the plaintiff is a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit without need for further review.

Rather, there is no dispute between the parties, or according to the results of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6 through 8, 15, 19, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), witness sign, each part of old Jin's testimony, and fact-finding on the Korean National Bank, the following facts can be observed. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff was paid a certain amount of wages from the foundation *********** is recognized as having been involved in the management of the hospital **** because the plaintiff is not a worker subject to the application of the Labor Standards Act.

(1) The plaintiff was registered as the auditor from June 13, 2008 to April 15, 2009, when the foundation was established, as well as ************ as a promoter of the foundation,********** as a director of the current medical corporation, who had been operated before the foundation was established as the director from July 7, 201 to January 31, 201.************* of the current medical corporation, who was registered as the current medical corporation.

(2) Of the instant building, the Plaintiff’s mother**, No. 202, No. 203, the Plaintiff’s birth **, the Plaintiff’s birth * on January 20, 2010, *******. The maximum debt amount of KRW 11,6480,00,000, which was set up under No. 202, and the right to collateral security of KRW 26520,000,00,000, which was set up under No. 203, was cancelled on March 30, 2010 after the contribution of the instant building. (3) The Plaintiff’s father, * South, the Plaintiff’s father, ***** has a loan claim in an amount corresponding to the amount of loans to the Foundation, ** South and North Korea, *** a lessee of a cafeteria within the hospital*** a lessee of the Foundation** a joint and several surety has also made a deposit for lease.

(4) From March 8, 2010 to December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff was employed as a director in charge of finance of the Foundation****** along with an interview, and determined working conditions, etc.******* when a bank loan is made in custody of the Foundation, the relevant documents and corporate identification have been made to the head of both sides, and***** for the operation of the hospital **** for the operation of the hospital ** as a couple of the Lonebyby club along with Anhee.

(5) The Plaintiff’s wife************* Hospital,**hee, man-made (**)

The account and father of the name ** the account in the name * the account in the name of South from June 2008 to March 201, 201, which is not a certain amount each month, short of a day, about 2 months in the past, at very indefinite intervals, less than 20,000 won, less than 15 million won, and more than 15 million won (the 31 December 31, 2009).

(6)*** Unlike most of the other doctors or employees working at a hospital, the individual wage ledger for the plaintiff was not prepared, and the wage and salary income tax was not withheld.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Sung-sung

Judges Laos