2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The defendant is a juristic person engaged in educational consulting business, book publishing business, educational content development business, etc., and C is a representative director.

B. As of December 31, 2013, C was holding 47.6% of the number of Defendants, and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) holding 13.4% of the number of Defendants. However, as of December 31, 2016, C and D’s shares are 41.92% and 36.03%, respectively.

C. The Plaintiff, the representative director of E, was appointed at the Defendant’s general meeting of shareholders as other non-executive directors. On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff retired on December 27, 2016, and the details were registered in the Defendant’s corporate register.

The Plaintiff was assigned the position of executive director in the Defendant, and was in overall in charge of management and financial management from June 17, 2014 to September 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 7, Eul's Nos. 1, 4, 5, 30 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's primary claim 1) The plaintiff provided labor under the defendant's representative director C's direction and supervision, which constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

Although the plaintiff is registered as a director in the corporate register of the defendant, this is merely a formal objective of the position of director under the Commercial Code, which is given to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's necessity.

B) On September 12, 2016, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity for vindication while dismissing the Plaintiff and did not indicate specific grounds for dismissal, and there are no grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the instant dismissal is null and void.) Accordingly, the Defendant sought confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal of the instant case, as well as the payment of the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 7,00,000 per month as wages that the Defendant could have received from September 13, 2016 to the time of returning the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.