The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misunderstanding of legal principles) D is subject to a preferential acquisition contract concluded between G and C (hereinafter “C”) and the Defendant, and is dispatched to G by G, and thereafter performed business surveillance or accounting audit for G or the Defendant from around that time. Since March 29, 2016, C’s agent was appointed as auditor and paid remuneration.

D's business affairs were decided by G, not by the defendant, the representative director, but by G, most of the D's business was the management monitoring or audit of the defendant, and D directly reported the business affairs to G other than the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found D guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that D is an employee under the Labor Standards Act, is not a "worker" under the Labor Standards Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

2. Determination

A. Article 2(1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits provides that “worker” means a worker under Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “worker” means a person who provides work for a business or workplace for wage purposes irrespective of the type of occupation.

Whether a worker is subject to the Labor Standards Act shall be determined by whether the worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages regardless of the form of contract. Thus, even if an officer such as a director or auditor of a company or a corporation is an officer, his/her status or title is a formal and scenic purpose, and in fact, he/she is in a relationship of receiving remuneration by offering a certain labor under the direction and supervision of the representative director or the

(b).