1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants, who produce and sell clothing, miscellaneous, etc., concluded a contract on purchase of department stores, which provides that companies operating superstores, such as a lot department store and a new global department store, and products manufactured by the Defendants, shall be supplied to the above superstore, and the companies shall pay the remaining sales proceeds after deducting a certain amount of commission from the sales price to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants agreed to dispatch human resources to conduct sales business within each superstore.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants concluded each sales service contract, and Plaintiff A, from January 21, 2007 to August 19, 2014, was in charge of the sales of the Defendants’ products at the new global department store C stores of Defendant Scari, and Plaintiff B, from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2014, from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2014.

C. The content of a sales agency contract or a sales agency contract concluded between Plaintiff A and Defendant Sculand, Plaintiff B and Defendant Dala is as shown in attached Tables 1 and 2. In the case of the same condition, the contract was automatically renewed after the contract period, and in the case of changes in the contract terms, such as changes in the fee rate, a new contract was concluded.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 24, 27 through 30, Eul 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the plaintiff Gap entered into a sales service agreement with the defendant Scina, and the plaintiff Eul entered into a sales service agreement with the defendant Dalian, and accordingly, took charge of sales at the store in a superstore designated by the defendants. Considering all circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the substance of the sales service agreement was in a labor contract in which the defendants provided labor for the purpose of wages.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay retirement allowances stated in the claims to the Plaintiffs.