The Plaintiffs concluded an entrustment contract with the Defendant and set up the attached Table “period of work” at each of the Defendant’s respective branches or sub-branches during the pertinent period, and retired from the office as of the end of that period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including more than one number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion falls under a worker under the Labor Standards Act who actually worked in a subordinate relationship with the defendant, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay legal retirement allowances and damages for delay corresponding to each service period in accordance with the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

B. The Plaintiffs entered into an entrustment contract with the Defendant, and actually performed their duties independently and independently, without being subject to restrictions on the time, place, work order, etc., and received fees calculated according to the results of the performance (i.e., the results of the management of affairs) without basic pay.

In addition, the lease researchers of the defendant could freely engage in a concurrent business while carrying out their business, and some of the plaintiffs actually engaged in a concurrent business and raised a considerable amount of income.

The contractual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiffs is close to delegation or contract, and the plaintiffs cannot be viewed as a worker under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the defendant in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages, so the defendant does not have a duty to pay retirement allowances

3. Determination as to whether the plaintiffs are workers under the Labor Standards Act

A. Whether a person constitutes a worker under the relevant legal doctrine is an employment contract.