The defendant, 1.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) Determination as to the cause of claim 1) The fact that F made a judgment as to the claim for wages in the Defendant Company from November 201 to July 29, 201 is as seen earlier, and F was working for the Defendant Company as an employee in the Defendant Company (the Defendant Company was led to confession, but the Defendant Company stated a preparatory document dated July 2, 2014, stating the purport against it at the third date of pleading in the first instance trial, and thus, the confession is revoked.

An auditor on the corporate register of the F may, if there is no dispute between the parties or if there is a separate number, be recognized by each entry in the evidence No. 28 (including a branch number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) of this title.

However, even if an officer is a director or auditor of a company, his/her position or title is a formal and scenic purpose, and in fact, he/she is paid for a certain amount of work under the direction and supervision of the representative director or user who has the right to work daily.

If a representative director, etc. takes charge of certain labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director, etc. or receives certain remuneration in return, such officer constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da57459, Jun. 27, 2013; 2002Da64681, Sept. 26, 2003); and the following facts are acknowledged by the purport of the entire statement and pleading of evidence Nos. 6 and 16, and the purport of the whole statement and pleading of evidence Nos. 6 and 16 are as follows: (a) the retirement benefit provision based on the employee was applied to the Defendant, not the officer retirement benefit provision; and (b) the fact that the employee is classified as an employee from the classification of an officer and employee, all the Defendant-Counterclaims submitted by the Defendant, who are