1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. As such, this case is cited by the main sentence of

In addition, the first instance judgment

3.2

3) At the end of paragraph (1), the following judgments are added. The details of changes in the rate of payment stated in the Evidence (Public Notice) No. 27 (Public Notice) are merely different from the rate of payment depending on the absolute collection amount of each debt collector’s respective debt collector’s capacity and working attitude. Since the debt collector’s goal of collection is differentiated according to his/her capacity and working attitude, and the rate of fees vary depending on his/her achievement rate, it cannot be deemed that the direction, supervision, or evaluation sanctions against the Plaintiffs are premised on

A person shall be appointed.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance in the same judgment

3.2

4) Paragraph 4 is high as follows: (a) when the debt collection center temporarily goes out of the Defendant Company’s branch, it shall record the business trip site visit person, expected hours, etc. in the register in the name of “the visiting activity register for debt-related persons”; (b) the person in charge of the going out of the register shall record specific time with respect to going out of the register; and (c) the fact that the person in charge of the debt collection grants approval. However, such circumstance alone is difficult to readily conclude that the management of the claims collection center was conducted on a regular basis at all of the branches of the Defendant Company’s company. Rather, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 8, 18, and 29, ① from August 2003 to January 2008, G, one of the Defendant’s members, who did not go beyond the working hours of Plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5, did not control the Defendant’s remaining out of the register in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Ga8236, supra.