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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act should be determined in accordance with whether the substance of labor provision in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace is determined rather than in the form of a contract.

In this context, the issue of whether an employer is a subordinate relationship should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various economic and social conditions, such as determining the content of work, whether the employer is subject to the rules of employment or service, whether the employer is subject to considerable direction and supervision during the performance of work, whether the employer is bound by the employer, whether the employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account, whether the employer is capable of purchasing equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc. or having a third party employ and act on behalf of him/her, whether the employer has a risk, such as creation of profit and loss by providing labor, whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of work itself, whether the basic salary or fixed wage was determined and withheld, whether the employer has continued to provide labor, whether the employer has exclusive responsibility for the employer, and whether the status of an employee is recognized

However, the circumstances such as whether a basic wage or fixed wage was determined, whether a labor income tax was withheld, and whether a social security system was recognized as an employee should not be readily denied the nature of an employee solely on the ground that the employer is highly likely to arbitrarily determine it by taking advantage of the economic superior position (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da20550, Jul. 9, 2015). 2. The lower court concluded a contract with the Defendant for off-the-counter business commission with the Defendant, and notified the Defendant’s customer of the card theory by telephone.