1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a person who operates a substitute driver company with the trade name "E" at the Jeonju City.

The plaintiffs are the substitute drivers who concluded a contract with the defendant to be entrusted with the substitute driving service and performed the substitute driving service as mediated by the defendant.

(b) The vicarious driving business is divided into the type of business in which the vicarious driving engineer is directly employed as an employee, and the type of business in which the agent enters into an information use contract with a vicarious driving engineer, depending on the relationship with the vicarious driving engineer.

The method of brokerage is to notify the customer telephone number, departure point, destination point, charges, and fees, which are detailed information about the request for dispatch by the substitute driver after receiving the request for dispatch from the substitute driver, and accordingly, if the substitute driver performs the substitute driving, the substitute driver shall pay a fee (30% of the substitute driving fee) to the substitute driver after receiving the substitute driving fee from the customer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for damages related to the Plaintiff A’s insurance premium

A. The summary of the cause of the claim is that the defendant collected approximately KRW 50,000 per month from the plaintiff as an insurance premium for group insurance in preparation for traffic accidents that may occur while driving on behalf of the plaintiff, but only some of them were actually paid as an insurance premium. The 50,000 collected each month as above should be used only as an insurance premium as the amount entrusted with the purpose of use. In relation to the above money, the delegation contract between the plaintiff A and the defendant under Article 680 of the Civil Act is established, and the defendant must return the remaining money used as an insurance premium to the plaintiff A, but the defendant embezzled the difference that the defendant paid as an actual insurance premium without returning

Therefore, the defendant is actually the plaintiff.