Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff, who was the Defendant’s debt collection source, constituted an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the worker nature under the Labor Standards Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

B. As to Article 2 of the Grounds for Appeal, where a party applied for the resumption of argument in order to submit proof of argument after the closing of argument, the party’s application for resumption of argument falls under the court’

The case where the court is obligated to resume the pleading and continue the hearing is limited to the case where the judgement against the party without providing the party with an opportunity to submit the proof of his/her assertion is against the procedural justice pursued by the Civil Procedure Act.

For the reasons that the party who filed an application for resumption of pleading was unable to have the opportunity to submit the proof of argument because it was difficult for him/her to be held responsible prior to the closing of argument, and the subject matter of the proof of argument constitutes a major fact of proof as to the outcome of the judgment

(2) Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court is difficult to deem that there was an exceptional circumstance under which the trial should continue by resumption of pleadings, on the ground that it was difficult for the Defendant to be held liable to the Defendant prior to the closing of pleadings, due to the circumstance that it was difficult for the Defendant to be held liable to the Defendant prior to the closing of pleadings, and that the Defendant did not have the opportunity to submit evidence regarding whether the cause of debt collection was directed to the Plaintiff and the means of sanctions.

Therefore, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning.