In this case, where the plaintiffs, who had been the members of the electricity rates of the defendant company, seek the payment of retirement allowances under the rules of employment of the defendant company against the defendant company, the court below selected the evidence as stated in its judgment and classify them into the members of the defendant company's receiving fees. The commissioned members shall deposit the amount equivalent to 25 percent of the assigned amount with the deposited money and enter into the consignment contract with the deposited money. This contract shall be renewed every one year. The plaintiffs shall enter into the above consignment contract with the above deposited money and the contract shall be renewed every year. The plaintiffs shall receive the above deposited money without specified pay or fixed pay if they receive the fixed amount of the money and if they fall short of the fixed amount of the fixed amount of the money, they shall not be paid at all, and the contract relations between the defendant company and the entrusted members can not be seen as being legally restricted to the plaintiffs' receiving of the fixed amount of the money in advance, since they can not be seen as being belonging to the fixed amount of the fixed amount of the money in their employment agreement with the defendant company.

Based on the facts acknowledged by the court below, it is difficult to see that the plaintiffs are in a subordinate labor relationship with the defendant company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 69Nu152, Jul. 21, 1970). In the same purport, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on workers under the Labor Standards Act, such as theory of lawsuit, etc.

In sum, the grounds of appeal cannot be employed on the premise that there is a subordinate labor relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant company on the ground that they did not recognize the facts by the court below.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

As seen above, insofar as the plaintiffs cannot be deemed as workers in subordinate labor relations with the defendant company, the regulations of the defendant company pointing out in theory merely provide for the enhancement of efficiency of the collection and accuracy of the collection business, and its nature is different from the rules of employment. Thus, Article 95 of the Labor Standards Act cannot be deemed as being applied to the preparation or modification, and it cannot be deemed as having affected the plaintiffs' status by its preparation or modification. Thus, the change is in violation of Article 95 of the Labor Standards Act, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the modification of the rules of employment or the law on the evasion of the law, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the evasion of the law.

Therefore, all arguments are without merit, and all appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)