1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the decision by reexamination is identical to the reasoning of the judgment by the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the intervenor is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the decision on review of this case, which is based on the premise that the intervenor is an employee under the Labor Standards Act, is unlawful

1) The Plaintiff had a garden and a wedding room established according to the purpose of its establishment. The Intervenor, who, accordingly, did not undergo the procedures of appointment prescribed by the Plaintiff’s personnel management regulations and the recommendation of the head of the hospital and the approval of the board of directors, did not prepare a labor contract as the principal of the hospital. The Plaintiff did not have the organization of the Plaintiff, and did not have the rules of employment, personnel management regulations, salary regulations, etc. were not applicable. 2) The Intervenor conducted his/her duties on his/her own basis without the direction or supervision of the Plaintiff, with respect to the art and delivery for the hospital employees and the patients, and the patient’s religious life guidance programs.

3) The Intervenor covered the expenses incurred in the activities of the Intervenor with the contribution of the Plaintiff without the Plaintiff’s support. The Intervenor spent the contribution under his/her own judgment, such as employing the Dogian and paying the benefits, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the use and finance of the contribution. 4) The Intervenor operated the business independently, such as having the F or external pastors employed by him/her do the worship on his/her behalf, and did not exclusively have the Plaintiff engage in the business.

5 The plaintiff is a company house for the intervenor's employee and the patient in return for the delivery of tugboats and his/her activities.