The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 30,162,415 as well as the full payment from September 15, 2019.

. Facts of recognition.

A. On March 1, 2009, the Plaintiff provided labor under employment of the Defendant, a stock company engaging in software development and supply business, etc. and retired on August 31, 2019.

Amount of annual salary under an annual salary contract: 33,600,000 basic salary (annual): 24,000,000 won (annual) allowance: 9,600,000 won for interim settlement of accounts under an annual salary contract; 4) interim settlement of accounts for retirement allowances (annual: Won

2. The annual allowance and ordinary wage 1) The annual allowance and the interim adjustment of retirement allowance are included in the annual salary of the contract. 6. Payment holiday on June. 7, 200 shall be governed by separate regulations. Work hours: ① Work hours on a daily basis: 09:0 to 18:00, Saturdays, and Sundays are on a holiday basis.* Work hours on a daily basis as in the work hours of the relevant enterprise during the implementation of the project. 8. Work hours on August 8: 60 minutes a day: 9. Work hours on a holiday: 60 minutes a day: A separate regulations are followed. B. On February 23, 2009, the Plaintiff is referred to as the “instant employment contract” with the Defendant and annual salary contract (hereinafter “instant employment contract”).

Having drawn up, the main contents are as follows. [The fact that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, the entry of Eul No. 1-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings:

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff provided labor under employment by the Defendant from March 1, 2009 to August 31, 2019. Under the premise that the Plaintiff received the monthly average of KRW 4,000,000 for three months prior to the retirement, the Plaintiff seeks the payment of retirement allowances.

In regard to this, the defendant did not have the obligation to pay retirement allowances to the defendant since he did not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act because the plaintiff performed only the work assigned to him and provided work with incentives, such as allowances, and did not constitute a worker under the direction and supervision of the defendant. Even if not, the defendant did not pay to the plaintiff an average of KRW 4,00,000 per month for three months prior to his retirement.

B. The evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1-1, 2-2, as to whether a person is a worker or not.