1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company primarily for trucking franchise business, etc.

B. The Plaintiff, as a shareholder holding 12,00 shares (20%) issued by the Defendant, served as the Defendant’s internal director from October 15, 2012 to June 30, 2015, and as the Defendant’s outside director from June 30, 2015 to June 24, 2016, respectively.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, Eul 1, 9, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff, while holding office as the defendant's director, is an employee who takes charge of simple and repetitive tasks, such as vehicle management and allocation management, under the direction and supervision of the defendant's representative director, and receives a certain amount of remuneration. The defendant is obligated to pay 14,451,459 won of statutory retirement allowances and delay damages therefor to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s registered director, does not constitute “worker” as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, is unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s instant claim

3. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff is a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

A. Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act provides that a person who provides labor to a business or workplace for wage purposes regardless of the type of occupation shall be a worker.

Whether the form of contract is a worker should be determined in substance by whether the worker provided work to the employer for the purpose of wages in the business or workplace, regardless of whether the contract is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for work.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance of duties, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance of duties. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance of duties, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance of duties, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.