1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be applied for the return of the provisional payment.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the defendant emphasizes or added the following “3. Additional Judgment” is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding “3. Additional Judgment” to the argument that the defendant emphasizes or added in this court. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. On the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term "a delegation contract" of the second and second parts of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "an employment contract" of each "an employment contract" of the 17 and 18, the 6th "day of occurrence" of the 6th and the 6th "this judgment" of the 6th "the 17th judgment" respectively.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, from 6th to 12th, "No such case shall be accepted," shall be raised as follows:

In addition, the plaintiff may exercise his/her voting right by attending the defendant's board of directors during the period from March 6, 2013 to October 20, 2014, which was registered as the defendant's registration director. However, the above period seems to have been individually, specifically directed and supervised by the defendant representative director in performing the defendant's production head's duties and performing his/her duties, as in the previous period. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the actual substance of the plaintiff's entire duties performed by the plaintiff after the plaintiff resigned from the registration director as well as before and after the plaintiff becomes the defendant's registration director, it is reasonable to consider that the plaintiff provided his/her labor in subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages. It is difficult to view that the plaintiff's attendance and resolution right for

3. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion and determination as to retirement allowances, at least, asserts that the period from March 6, 2013 to October 20, 2014, which the Plaintiff served as a registered director, cannot be deemed as an employee, and thus, the above period should be excluded from the calculation of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowances.

However, as the plaintiff was in office as a registration director, the existing business was changed.

(2) shall have served as a registration director.