1. All appeals by the plaintiff and defendant M are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant M are Defendant M.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(The findings of fact and judgments of the first instance court shall not be different, considering the allegations and evidence added in the trial. 2. Additional judgments

A. The plaintiff asserts that since defendant C and A are registered as a director of the company in this case, they cannot be viewed as an employee subject to the Labor Standards Act, they do not recognize the right of preferential repayment of wage claims.

Whether a worker is subject to the Labor Standards Act shall be determined by whether the worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages regardless of the form of contract. Thus, even if an officer such as director or auditor of a company is an officer, his status or title is a formal and scenic purpose, and in fact, he is in a relationship of receiving remuneration in return for the provision of labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director or the

If a representative director, etc. is responsible for certain labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director, etc. and is paid a certain amount of remuneration, such officer is a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

I would like to say.

(Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64681 Decided September 26, 2003). According to the evidence No. 12-2, Defendant C and A may recognize the fact that they assumed office as director of the instant company on March 19, 2010.

However, in full view of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 4-7, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 5-4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 10, 11, and 12 and testimony of U witness of the first instance trial, the defendant C is in charge of the purchase of goods, etc. while serving as the deputy head of the purchase department, and works for them.