A. As to the cause of the claim, Plaintiff B prepared a written contract, and Plaintiff A and C concluded a contract with Plaintiff I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), and then, the said Plaintiffs directly provided labor by doing so, as an employee, by doing so, for the completion of the set-off work, the process of tampling, and the process of tampling that is necessary for the production of tamp-out.

However, Plaintiff A did not receive wages of KRW 19,980,00 for labor until November 2, 2016; Plaintiff B’s wages of KRW 16,997,00 for labor until November 12, 2016; and Plaintiff C’s wages of KRW 27,30,000 for labor until November 12, 2016.

B. Determination of whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act ought to be made in accordance with whether a contract form is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and whether an employee in substance provides labor to an employer for wages in a business or workplace.

Here, whether a dependent relationship exists with an employer shall be subject to the rules of employment or service regulations, etc. of the employer, whether the employer is subject to considerable direction and supervision in the course of performing duties, whether the employer is designated working hours and places and is subject to detention of the employee, whether the employer is able to operate his/her business on his/her own account, whether the labor provider itself has awareness of risks, such as the creation of profits and the occurrence of losses through the provision of labor, whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the work itself, whether the basic pay or fixed pay has been determined, whether the employer has exclusive responsibility for the employer, and whether the employer has continued to provide labor relations, and whether the employer has exclusive responsibility for the employer.