1. The defendant has to the plaintiffs the corresponding amount of money stated in the attached Table 4's "amount of personal use" and each of them.

1. Basic facts are companies engaged in claims collection business, credit investigation business, credit inquiry business, etc. with the permission of the Financial Services Commission in accordance with the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act;

The Plaintiffs concluded a delegation contract with the Defendant, and set up the “work period” of the attached Table 2 at each of the branches or sub-branches listed in attached Table 3 during each corresponding period, and retired from the office as of the end of that period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including above numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The main points of the plaintiffs' assertion are workers under the Labor Standards Act who are employed in the defendant through the form of delegation contract, but actually provide labor in subordinate relationship with the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay legal retirement allowances and damages for delay corresponding to each service period in accordance with the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

B. The Defendant’s summary of rebuttals concluded a delegation contract with the Defendant to freely perform his/her duties, without obtaining high fees.

In fact, the defendant did not provide specific direction and supervision or management of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs did not apply the rules of employment of the defendant, etc., and they were engaged concurrently in the business of collecting claims independently.

The fees received by the plaintiffs were paid according to the result of the collection of the claim, which is the result of the acceptance of the case, and it is also significant, so it cannot be deemed that they were paid for work itself

Ultimately, since the plaintiffs cannot be viewed as a worker under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages, the defendant is not obligated to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiffs.

In particular, since 2009, the Supreme Court recognized the worker status of the defendant's debt collector.