The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act shall be determined in substance, rather than whether a contract is an employment contract or a contract is a contract for employment, depending on whether a labor provider provided an employer with labor for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace.

In this context, whether a dependent relationship exists shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) whether an employer determines the details of duties and is subject to rules of employment or service regulations, and whether an employer directs and supervises the employer during the performance of duties; (b) whether an employer is bound by the employer to designate working hours and working places; (c) whether an employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account; (d) whether a labor provider voluntarily has a risk, such as creating profits and incurring losses from the provision of labor; (e) whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the labor; (e) whether the basic salary or fixed wage has been determined; and (e) whether the wage has been withheld from the wage and salary income tax; (e) whether the continuous performance of the labor provision relationship; and (e) whether the employer has exclusive responsibility for the employer; and (e) whether

However, the circumstances such as whether a basic wage or fixed wage was determined, whether a labor income tax was withheld, and whether a person is recognized as an employee on the social security system, are not recognized as having high possibility of arbitrary determination by taking advantage of economic superior status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29736, Dec. 7, 2006). 2. Reviewing the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

The defendant.