1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 19,500,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from October 1, 201 to June 9, 2015.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts as follows as the ground for the main claim.

From June 1, 2009 to September 30, 201, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,500,000 per month while working as an employee of the Defendant for 28 months from September 1, 201. However, the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 19,50,000 (=1,50,000 x 13 months x 13 months) and the retirement pay of KRW 3,493,150, and delay damages therefrom.

Even if the Plaintiff was not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff was paid monthly remuneration of KRW 1,500,000,000, pursuant to the agreement with the Defendant, and only 15-month remuneration was paid from the Defendant during the above service period. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder remuneration of KRW 19,50,000 (=1,50,000 x 13 months) to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom.

B. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s claim for wages.

Officers such as directors, auditors, etc. of a corporation are delegated by the company for certain business affairs. Thus, since they are not in an employment relationship under the employer's direction and supervision for providing certain labor and receiving certain wages, their status or title is a formal objective, and in fact, they are in an employment relationship under the employer's direction and supervision for attending daily work and receiving remuneration for them.

Unless there are circumstances, such as under the direction and supervision of the representative director, etc. and receiving a certain amount of remuneration, it shall not be deemed as workers under the Labor Standards Act, in addition to handling affairs delegated by the company or performing affairs.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, i.e., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da61312, Feb. 23, 2001; 2002Da64681, Sept. 26, 2003.