The defendant asserted that the plaintiff is only a person who operates the defendant as a registration director of the defendant and is not an employee employed by the defendant.

Officers such as directors, auditors, etc. of a corporation are delegated by the company for certain business affairs. Thus, it is not an employment relationship in which the employer provides certain labor under the direction and supervision of the employer and receive certain wages, and therefore, even in the case of receiving certain wages, they cannot be deemed as wages prescribed in the Labor Standards Act. Even in the case of paying retirement allowances to officers such as directors, etc. under the provisions of the company, such retirement allowances are not a retirement allowance prescribed in the Labor Standards Act, but a remuneration paid in compensation for the performance of duties while in office. However, whether it is a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act should be determined depending on whether the employer provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages

Even if an officer is a director or auditor of a company, he/she is in a formal and nominal position or name, and in fact, he/she is entitled to receive remuneration in return for providing a certain labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director or user who has the right to work daily, or has received certain remuneration in return for taking charge of a certain labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director, etc. and receiving certain remuneration in return for performing affairs delegated by the company.