1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,808,003 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from April 8, 2015 to May 10, 2017, and on May 11, 2017.

The defendant's summary of the case is a company that runs the wholesale business of drugs, and the fact that the plaintiff takes charge of the sales and collection of drugs in the defendant company from October 27, 200 to April 7, 2015 is not a dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff claims retirement allowances on the premise that he/she is an employee employed by the defendant, and claims unpaid sales remuneration, etc., and this shall be examined in order below.

Under the premise that the plaintiff is an employee, he/she shall claim a retirement allowance of 51,808,729 won and delay damages for the retirement allowance of 12th May of 14 and 14.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the business employee such as the plaintiff is not an employee but an independent business operator who entered into a contract for work and has no obligation to pay retirement allowances.

Therefore, I first examine whether the plaintiff is a worker.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 2, 3, 4-2, 11-1, and 2, the defendant concluded an annual salary contract with the same business employee as the plaintiff, including the amount of annual salary, retirement allowances, working hours, etc., and the defendant purchased a business employee qualification to the social security system, such as national pension, employment insurance, health insurance, and industrial accident insurance.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff as an employee; rather, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 5, 1, 2, 9, 9-2, and 19, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1, 5, 1, 2, 9-2, and 19, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s business employees, such as the Plaintiff, are an independent business entity engaging in the business for their own account upon delegation of the Defendant’s business affairs, such as

(1) Article 44 (1) and (2) 2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act is limited to a person who is entitled to sell drugs, as a pharmacy founder, licensed drug wholesaler, etc.