1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company that engages in credit investigation business, debt collection business, etc. with a credit information business license under the Credit Information Use and Protection Act (hereinafter “Credit Information Act”).

B. The Plaintiffs concluded a business delegation agreement with the Defendant for debt collection, and had the Defendant take charge of the business affairs related to the collection of general claims and special claims accepted by the Defendant from the creditors during the period indicated in the “period of service” in the attached retirement allowance calculation table.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 and 15 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they were employed by the defendant company in the form of delegation contract, but since they were employed by the defendant in a subordinate relationship with the purpose of actual wages such as receiving specific direction and supervision from the defendant in performing their duties, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs each money as stated in the "request amount" in the attached retirement allowance calculation sheet in accordance with the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not manage the Plaintiffs’ root or did not issue specific business instructions in relation to debt collection, and only provided work places and equipment so that the Plaintiffs can smoothly perform delegated affairs. The Plaintiffs received fees in proportion to debt collection performance without basic pay or fixed pay. The amount is large for each Plaintiff and each period, and the amount is not determined depending on the volume and quality of labor provided. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed as wages. Therefore, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiffs even if they were to be workers.