[Attachment 1] List (Attorney Or-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Byung-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 2, 2019

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gahap530644 Decided August 30, 2018

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the plaintiffs is modified and the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part regarding the plaintiffs in the judgment is modified as follows. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money in [Attachment 2] “claim amount” and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from “the initial date of delayed damages” to “the initial date of the payment of delay damages” (the plaintiff 13 in this court extended the purport of the claim and reduced the rest of the plaintiffs’ claim. The purport of the appeal by the plaintiffs is also deemed to have been modified as stated in the amended purport of the appeal).

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial (the expansion or reduction of claims of the plaintiffs in this court, but the issues regarding whether the plaintiffs are workers of the defendant). Considering the allegations and evidence submitted by the plaintiffs as to whether the plaintiffs are workers, the contents and scope of the plaintiffs' work are specified in the consignment contract, and the plaintiffs do not seem to have engaged in any business other than the contract according to the defendant's instructions, ② the consignment sale of department stores need to be conducted in a uniform manner, and the products sold by the plaintiffs are replaced frequently due to seasonal changes compared to other products, so the defendant's involvement in the price of the products, the method of displaying the products, and the distribution of store, etc. are inevitable, even if the plaintiffs are in charge of the sales, and ③ the defendant recommended and recommended the promotion of the sales, while emphasizing the sales performance of the plaintiffs, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs were in interest in the sales and sales, and that the plaintiffs did not seem to have been paid any disadvantage by the plaintiffs, such as unilaterally cancellation or reduction of sales fees.

2. Quotation and revision of the judgment of the court of first instance

Since the grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs are not accepted, the judgment of the first instance shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and some errors in the judgment of the first instance shall be corrected as follows, and some changes shall be made in accordance with the expansion and reduction

A. On the 10th, 3, 4, and 5th of the judgment of the first instance, the part regarding “the Defendant shall claim against the Defendant for the payment of each retirement allowance and its delay damages as stated in the attached Form “the amount of retirement pay based on the average wage of 12 months prior to the retirement” shall be deemed as follows: “The Defendant shall claim against the Defendant for the payment of the retirement allowance and its delay damages as stated in the attached Form 2.”

B. The “attached Form 2” of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to that of this judgment (attached Form 2).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that they are workers of the defendant should be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, but the plaintiffs' appeals are not reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims by expanding or reducing the claims of this court.

Judges Man-man (Presiding Judge)