1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion of the defendant and the intervenor as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

(A) The grounds alleged by the Defendant and the Intervenor in the trial while appealed are different from those alleged in the first instance court. However, the additional determination is not different from the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court even in light of the evidence additionally submitted by the Defendant and the Intervenor in the trial and the above allegations by the Defendant and the Intervenor.

A. 1) As a party to a transport contract between the defendant and the intervenor, the plaintiff is deemed to have performed only the agreed employee dispatch and retirement service by using his/her own vehicle, and the plaintiff paid the agreed transport charges to the intervenor. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as an employee of the intervenor. 2) After April 2014, the plaintiff actively participated in negotiations with the intervenor without the plaintiff's objection or refusal, and requested the intervenor to pay the purchase price, consolation money, retirement allowance, and other money for the vehicle to the intervenor. The plaintiff does not mean that "if he/she receives only KRW 15 million, he/she will get out of unemployment benefits and make it easier for the plaintiff to do so until he/she seeks another job." Since July 2014, 2014, the plaintiff demanded the plaintiff to receive unemployment benefits from the intervenor without the plaintiff's objection or refusal to do so, and the plaintiff's career certificate from July 21, 2014 to the plaintiff's employment.