2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

As the Plaintiff actually provided labor to the Defendant in the performance of its duties, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act under the direction and supervision of the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not have a duty to pay retirement allowances, on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

The key issue of this case is whether the plaintiff is a worker, that is, whether the plaintiff provided labor to the defendant in subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages.

2. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff is a worker

A. Whether a worker is a worker under the relevant legal doctrine should be determined by whether the form of a contract is an employment contract or a contract for work, and in substance, whether an employee provided work in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages at the business or workplace. Whether a subordinate relationship exists as mentioned above shall be determined by the employer and shall be subject to rules of employment or rules of service, etc., and shall be subject to the rules of employment or rules of service, etc., and whether the employer is subject to considerable direction and supervision by the employer in the course of performing the work, whether the employer is designated working hours and place, whether the employee is bound by the employer, whether the labor provider is capable of carrying on his/her business on his/her own account, such as possessing equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc., or having a third party employ and act on behalf of the employer, and whether the risks, such as the creation of profit and loss by providing labor, and the nature of the remuneration, whether the nature of the work is the subject of