(M) From November 1, 2007 to February 28, 2011, F paid fixed wages from Defendant E (hereinafter “E”) to work in accordance with the direction of Defendant. Moreover, as E’s employee on December 1, 2009, F purchased four major insurance such as health insurance, and withheld wage tax and four major insurance premiums from wages.

In light of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the F is a worker who provided labor for the purpose of wages in a subordinate relationship with the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances, but the F is not a worker.

Judgment

Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "worker means a person who provides labor to a business or workplace for the purpose of wages regardless of the type of occupation," and whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act should be determined in substance by whether the form of contract is an employment contract or a contract for employment, depending on whether the worker provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship with the business or workplace

The issue of whether a dependent relationship here exists shall be determined by the employer, who is subject to the rules of employment, service regulations, personnel regulations, etc., and whether an employer is subject to considerable command and supervision in the course of performing the work, whether an employer designates working hours and working places and is bound by the employer, whether a labor provider can operate his/her business on his/her own account, such as whether he/she can own equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc. or have a third party employ and act on behalf of him/her, and the risk of creating profits and losses through