A. Attached Form 2 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.

A. The defendant is a company engaged in debt collection, credit investigation, etc. with permission from the Financial Services Commission in accordance with the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act.

B. The plaintiffs are as follows between the defendant and the defendant

B. (2) Each contract for delegated debt collection (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the same content as subparagraph (A) was concluded, and the Defendant performed the business of managing and collecting claims (hereinafter “debt collection”) that the creditors accepted during each service period indicated in the column for “work period” in the attached Form 2 retirement allowance calculation sheet.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6, 24 (including each number, if any, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment as to the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiffs asserted 1) although they concluded an agency contract or delegation contract with the defendant formally, they correspond to the workers prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, since they provide labor subordinate to the defendant, such as being under considerable command and supervision from the defendant in the performance of their duties. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is merely an independent business operator who entered into an agency contract or delegation contract with the defendant on an equal footing, and is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act under which the defendant is under command and supervision by the defendant for the purpose of wages.

In particular, the case where the defendant directed and supervised the debt collection center is limited to the case where there are special circumstances, such as the M card management team, and the plaintiffs were not belonging to the M card management team, and they were not subject to command and supervision by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is not obliged to pay retirement allowances under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act to the plaintiffs.

B. The plaintiffs