1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the plaintiff shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant’s debt collection and credit investigation business under the Credit Information Use and Protection Act (hereinafter “Credit Information Act”); and (b) the Defendant’s debt collection and collection business that the Defendant accepted from the creditors from May 2, 2014 to August 31, 2016.

The Plaintiff concluded a delegation contract with the Defendant, but actually received considerable direction and supervision from the Defendant, and provided labor to the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff constitutes an employee prescribed by the Labor Standards Act.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 5,142,174 according to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

2. Determination:

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

As a result of a fact-finding trial, if the claims collection agency did not have a duty to attend the claims collection agency every day while maintaining contractual relationship with the claims collection agency and was under the command and supervision of the claims collection agency during the period under which the contractual relationship was maintained, circumstances that make it difficult to recognize the worker as evidence such as receiving an excessive amount of performance fee, etc., or the party who is responsible for proving the worker status of the claims collection agency submitted only the precedents of the judgment on the claims collection agency, etc. of other companies during the litigation process, and did not submit all evidence proving specific facts that the worker status can be recognized in the case, the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da252891 Decided April 15, 2016). B.

According to Gap evidence 1-9, Eul evidence 7-12, Eul evidence 8-12, Eul evidence 13-1, and Eul evidence 13-2, the period of time is three to six months.