1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. If facts or circumstances acknowledged by the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance which cited the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are compared and compared with the evidence submitted by the court of first instance, such facts or circumstances are sufficiently acceptable.

In addition, the court of first instance, based on the above, held that the car masters in this case received sales allowances from the Plaintiff in return for providing the Plaintiff with labor as a sales business under the direction and supervision of the Plaintiff, and therefore, guaranteeing three labor rights to the car masters in accordance with the purport of Article 33 of the Constitution is also justifiable.

This fact-finding and judgment, etc. are examined in addition to the descriptions of Gap evidence 24-1 to Gap evidence 31-3, Eul evidence 92-2 to Eul evidence 94-6.

Therefore, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the following, the main part of the claims that the plaintiff has repeated or additionally claimed in the appellate court shall be briefly examined.

2. The plaintiff's main assertion and judgment on the appeal

A. 1) The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is substantially broad cross-sale of car masterss. The car masters runs an automobile sales business without being bound by a specific region by acting independently from the agency representative online or community. Such cross-sale is mainly a business strategy to maximize their own interests. These cross-sale practices are intrinsic characteristics that appear in the course of car masters’s performance of automobile sales. Comprehensively considering these circumstances, the cross-sale practices clearly show that the car masters’s self-profit corresponds to “self-employed person” who performs independent business activities.