1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is an incorporated farming association with the purpose of wholesale business, retail business, planting business, management business of landscape trees, etc.

B. Since the establishment of the Defendant in around 2012, the Plaintiff was dismissed on March 2017 while serving as a director.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence No. 2

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff worked as the Defendant’s on-site agent or environmental technician from April 2012 to December 2016.

Since the Defendant did not pay KRW 83,146,790, which is the Plaintiff’s wage and retirement allowance or remuneration for labor, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 83,146,790 and the delay compensation therefor.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff merely carried out the work as a general director of the Defendant, and did not directly provide labor as a field agent, etc. The Plaintiff is not a defendant’s director, and thus cannot claim wages and retirement allowances. In addition, the Defendant’s articles of incorporation do not have any specific provision regarding the remuneration for labor. 2) Even if a labor relationship is recognized, the right to claim wages before three years from the time of filing the instant lawsuit has already expired.

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of wages and retirement allowances by an officer, such as a director who has an executive authority, is not a shareholder of the company but delegated the management of affairs by the company. Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, an employee cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act, since he/she provided certain labor under the employer’s direction and supervision and received certain wages, and thus, is not in an employment relationship that receives certain wages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu268, Jun. 14, 198), barring any evidence that there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the amount, method, time, etc. of payment, in cases where the articles of incorporation and relevant