2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion constitutes a person who retired from office by being employed by the defendant for the purpose of wages and provided labor under the defendant's specific direction and supervision, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act to the plaintiff.

B. The contract entered into with the Defendant is not a labor contract, but a delegation contract for debt collection. The Defendant did not have any specific direction and supervision to the Plaintiff during the course of performing its duties, and the Plaintiff did not apply the Defendant’s rules of employment and service regulations. The Plaintiff’s remuneration received by the Plaintiff is merely a performance fee based on the debt collection performance, and its amount has a significant difference depending on the amount of fixed wage or basic wage, and thus, it cannot be deemed as wages. The Plaintiff did not have been covered by the four-party insurance with the Defendant. The Defendant did not withhold business income tax on the Plaintiff’s fee, etc., and the Defendant merely withheld and paid the Plaintiff’s business income tax on the Plaintiff’s fee,

3. Determination

A. Determination of whether the Defendant’s obligation to pay retirement allowances constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act shall be based on whether an employee provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace in substance rather than in the form of a contract. Here, whether a dependent relationship exists shall be determined by the employer, subject to the rules of employment or service regulations, etc., and the employer shall exercise reasonable direction and supervision in the course of performing duties, and the employer shall designate