1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as to the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance, except where the judgment of the first instance is added as stated in the following paragraph (2).

The relevant part shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Since the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff provided labor to the Defendant under the direction and supervision of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

Since systematic work has been performed at all branches or departments of the defendant's head office under the uniform instructions, documents written at other points than the astronomical point can be inferred that the measures contained in the documents are applied nationwide in light of their identity and similarity.

B. Whether a person constitutes an employee in an individual case disputing the nature of employee of the claims collection agency is bound to vary depending on specific facts and degree of proof, such as the type of work at the individual workplace, such as the branch and branch of the claims collection agency.

As a result of a review, if the claims collection agency did not have a duty to attend daily at the claims collection agency, and it is deemed that the claims collection agency had been under the control and supervision of the claims collection agency during the contractual relationship with the claims collection agency, and it is difficult to recognize the worker as evidence, such as receiving an excessively small amount of performance fee, or the party who is responsible for proving the worker status of the claims collection agency submitted only precedents, etc. of the other company's claims collection agency in the course of the lawsuit, but fails to submit all evidence proving specific facts that can recognize the worker status in the case, etc.

[Supreme Court Decision 2009Da6998 Decided May 14, 2009, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40612 Decided September 10, 2015 (main office, etc.)