When the Defendant worked in the foregoing workplace from June 15, 2010 to December 31, 2010, and retired workers E paid KRW 950,000,000 as wages for June 201, wage of KRW 240,000 for July of the same year, wage of KRW 400,000 for August of the same year, wage of KRW 240,000 for September of the same year, wage of KRW 2,122,00 for October of the same year, wage of KRW 240,00 for November of the same year, wage of KRW 240,00 for December of the same year, and wage of KRW 240,00 for December of the same year, without agreement between the parties on the extension of the payment date, within 14 days from the date of retirement.

2. Determination

(a) The term “worker” as provided in Article 2 (1) 1 of the Labor Standards Act means a person who provides labor to a business or workplace for the purpose of wages regardless of the type of occupation, and whether it falls under it shall be determined according to whether an employer has provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the purpose

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6537, Sept. 26, 2013).

There is only a statement of E as to whether E is a worker who provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the defendant for the purpose of wages, and there is only a statement of E (the petition, a true statement, and the third protocol of trial) as evidence corresponding thereto.

A written statement of H is merely the content that the Defendant was in arrears with wages, not direct evidence as to whether E is an employee, and even if E is deemed to have the status of employee receiving wages from the Defendant, it is not believed in light of H’s statement in the sixth protocol of the trial.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant, witness F, G’s respective legal statements, and H’s statements in the sixth protocol of trial are consistent: ① Defendant is E.