1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant is "D" is an employer under the Labor Standards Act who directly directed and supervised not only the employees of the head office that has registered beauty business in their own name but also the employees of each branch office that has registered his/her business in his/her name after lending his/her name. The plaintiffs are employed by the defendant and the plaintiff A is the defendant from January 6, 1997 to December 10, 2015, while the plaintiff B is an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the defendant and retired from office from October 4, 2004 to December 3, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A retirement allowance of KRW 88,371,912 and damages for delay from December 25, 2015, including retirement allowance of KRW 42,622,742, and damages for delay from December 18, 2015, the retirement allowance of KRW 42,742, and damages for delay from December 18, 2015, respectively.

B. First of all, in order to have been in a practical employer’s position under which the Defendant is liable to pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiffs, it should be deemed that a substantial employment relationship has been established between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant in various aspects surrounding the employment relationship, such as the Defendant’s specific direction and supervision over the Plaintiffs during the continuous employment period claimed by the Plaintiffs, and the payment of wages to the Plaintiffs in return for their labor, or the other party to the provision of wages

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107071, 107088, May 24, 2012, etc.). However, in light of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 23, 24, 27, 28, 36 (including the serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), etc. of the evidence Nos. 1 through 13, 15 through 21, and 23, a substantial employment relationship was established between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant during the continuous employment period alleged by the Plaintiffs.