1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The parties' arguments and the issues of this case

A. The Plaintiff, while working as an employee of the Defendant Company that runs the Plaintiff’s business, etc., on behalf of the said Defendant Company, on behalf of the said Company, on behalf of the said Company, to enter into an Orala lease contract with C with respect to the said vehicle, and delivered the said vehicle. However, the Defendant Company did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 7,761,60,00, as such, is obligated to pay the said sales commission and the damages for delay.

B. Defendant 1) The sales commission agreement submitted by the Plaintiff to certify that the Plaintiff is a business employee of the Defendant Company is invalid, on the ground that D, who was a member of the Defendant Company, has the official seal of Defendant Company E, among co-representatives of the Defendant Company, and that all co-representatives do not affix their official seal. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not a business employee of the Defendant Company. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not a business employee of the Defendant Company. (ii) The Ortoo Lease Company, such as Gagra, mainly through the official transfer, mainly raises customers through the official transfer, and the official transfer is made by the business employee. In the event that the business employee entered into an Ortoo Lease Agreement, the lessee shall pay the sales commission in sequence to the official transfer, and the official transfer is made to the business employee.

On the other hand, the subcontractor, such as the defendant company, does not participate in the payment of the sales fee only when the subcontractor performs the business of paying the automobile registration tax on behalf of the customer.

Therefore, apart from the fact that the Plaintiff may claim the payment of the sales commission to F or G in the form of a lot Capital or a lot Capital belonging to the Defendant Company, it cannot be claimed by the Defendant Company.

C. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff was the Defendant Company.