Plaintiff

A On November 2, 2011, Plaintiff B entered into a service agreement with the Defendant on January 2, 2008, and Plaintiff C entered into a service agreement with each of the Defendant on November 3, 2009, and performed the Defendant’s claims management and collection until February 28, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs entered into a service contract form with the defendant, but they are practically subordinate to the defendant and are under the defendant's direction and supervision, and they are workers under the Labor Standards Act, since they perform the defendant's claims management and collection business.

Therefore, the defendant should pay retirement allowances to the plaintiffs.

B. The Plaintiff was delegated by the Defendant to render the service of collecting claims, not a worker who provided labor under the Defendant’s direction and supervision.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiffs are workers under the Labor Standards Act ought to be determined depending on whether the form of contract is an employment contract or a contract for employment, and whether an employee provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in substance. Whether a subordinate relationship exists shall be determined by the employer’s contents of work, and whether the employer has considerable direction and supervision in the process of performing work, whether the employer designates working hours and work places, whether the employer is subject to the employer’s designation of work hours and work place, whether the employee is subject to detention, whether the labor provider is able to independently conduct business on its own, such as owning of equipment, raw materials, work tools, etc. or performing duties on behalf of a third party, and the occurrence of profits and losses through the provision of labor.