2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a person who was employed by, and retired from, the Defendant for the purpose of wage, and provided labor under the Defendant’s specific direction and supervision, and the Defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff entered into with the Defendant constitutes a delegation contract for debt collection, not a labor contract. The Defendant did not have any specific direction and supervision to the Plaintiff in the course of performing its duties. The Plaintiff was not subject to the Defendant’s rules of employment and service regulations. The Plaintiff’s remuneration received by the Plaintiff is merely a performance fee based on the debt collection performance, and there is no fixed wage or basic wage, and thus, the amount differs significantly depending on the debt collector and each payment period. The Plaintiff did not have been covered by four major insurance policies with the Defendant. The Defendant collected business income tax on the Plaintiff’s fees and so, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor

B. Determination 1) Whether the Defendant’s obligation to pay retirement allowances falls under a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act shall be determined depending on whether the form of a contract is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and whether an employee has provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace. Here, whether a subordinate relationship exists shall be determined by the employer, and the rules of employment or employment shall be subject to the rules of employment or labor regulations, etc.