Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant, as the representative of D in medical city C, is an employer who runs a private teaching institute business by employing three full-time workers.

The Defendant did not pay KRW 3,007,140 of retirement allowances, which he/she worked as a school lecturer from April 6, 2012 to September 5, 2014, within 14 days from the date of his/her retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment deadline.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. The legal statement of the witness H in part;

1. The defendant and defense counsel asserted that E is not an employee employed by the defendant, but an individual entrepreneur.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the Defendant entered into a franchise franchise agreement with the head of the pertinent private teaching institute, which is the head of the instant private teaching institute, by organizing an additional teaching lecture in English, with the Defendant as the head of the instant private teaching institute; ② the above franchise test was conducted by the students; ② the Defendant applied for teaching materials for each student according to the diagnosis; ② there was no room for the Defendant to intervene; ③ the instructors, including E, applied for teaching materials; ③ the Defendant directly talks with the studying instructor in the case of the learning-related relationship with the Defendant without knowledge on the learning portion; ③ whether the Defendant paid the teaching materials, the date of the president’s meeting, and the public relations issues.

(4) The fact that E did not receive a specific individual direction and supervision on the contents, method, etc. of lectures from the Defendant, or that it was difficult for E to be free from commuting to and from work due to the characteristics of the above franchise lectures is due to such circumstance that it is difficult to deny the worker nature of E due to such circumstance, and ⑤ even according to the Defendant’s assertion, E’s tuition fees, etc. are compared to E as decided by the Defendant.