A. The counterclaim Defendant is a company selling cosmetics by door-to-door sales under sponsorship and multi-level marketing, and C (hereinafter “instant Japanese company”) is a company located in Japan, which was established on September 30, 201 in accordance with Japanese law, and the counterclaim Defendant holds 100% of the shares.

B. The counterclaim was working as a business employee at the Gangnam branch of the counterclaim Defendant, and was working as the representative director from the time of the establishment of the instant Japanese company.

November 30, 2016, the retirement was made at the expiration of the term.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's entry in the evidence Nos. 1 (including branch numbers if there are serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, as the representative director of the instant Japanese company, was formally employed by the Plaintiff as the representative director of the instant Japanese company, to resolve the problem under the Accounting of the counterclaim Defendant and the Foreign Exchange Management Act. In fact, the Plaintiff was employed as the employee of the counterclaim Defendant under continuous direction and supervision by the counterclaim Defendant. As such, the counterclaim Defendant sought payment of the total amount of unpaid benefits from September 2015 to April 2016, the counterclaim Defendant sought payment of KRW 27,989,312, and the counterclaim was employed as the representative director of the instant Japanese company, and the counterclaim was discharged from the instant Japanese company, and was on duty as the representative director of the instant Japanese company, who was on duty, and was on duty, was on duty, and therefore, there is no direct legal relation, i.e., employment relationship or delegation relationship with the counterclaim Defendant, and thus, the counterclaim’s claim based on such premise is unreasonable.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the evidence Nos. 1 through 10 and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the counterclaim was a representative director of the Japanese company of this case under the direction and supervision of the counterclaim Defendant and actually entered into an employment relationship with the counterclaim Defendant, and that the counterclaim was a representative director.