The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

(a) Even if a director or auditor of a company is insufficient to view it as handling the affairs delegated by the company in light of the nature of its business, and in fact, if he/she has received certain remuneration for such labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director, etc. who has the right to execute business, it constitutes a worker

(2) Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The court shall render a judgment as to whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity, by taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the outcome of the examination of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64681, Sept. 26, 2003).”

(Article 432 of the same Act). (b)

In light of the facts and circumstances of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the plaintiff constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, since the representative director C, who is the final decision-making authority of the defendant company, provided labor in subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages under the specific individual direction

C. The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the fact-finding, which is the basis of the judgment of the court below, is merely an error of the choice of evidence and the judgment on the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court,

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the nature of duties and worker nature under the Commercial Act, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. The plaintiff's incidental appeal.