The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff did not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the Defendant’s workplace for the purpose of wages, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for wages, etc. based on such premise.

This part of the ground of appeal is merely an argument about the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the lower court’s full power as a fact-finding court, and it is difficult to view it as a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if the reasoning of the lower judgment is examined in light of the records, it did

2. In examining the record as to the ground of appeal No. 2, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s assertion that remuneration for management should be paid if the Plaintiff is not recognized as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and further, such assertion is inconsistent with the claim cause of this case premised on the Plaintiff’s employee nature, and it cannot be deemed that it included such assertion in the claim cause of this case.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lower court erred by omitting judgment on a different premise.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.