1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company that runs claims collection business and credit investigation business with a license granted by the Financial Supervisory Commission under the Credit Information Use and Protection Act (hereinafter “Credit Information Act”).

B. The Plaintiff A entered into a contract on debt collection commission with the Defendant, and, from February 3, 2004 to June 30, 2010, performed the debt collection business as a debt collector belonging to the Defendant’s place of origin.

(However, the debt collection commission contract was prepared on February 24, 2004).

Plaintiff

B concluded a debt collection commission contract on November 10, 2003 between the Defendant and the debt collector from the same date to May 31, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 6, Eul witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs prepared a contract for debt collection commission, not a labor contract, between the defendant and the defendant, and then work as a debt collector belonging to the defendant. However, the plaintiffs provided labor to the defendant in subordinate relationship, such as practically under the defendant's specific direction and supervision in performing their duties. The plaintiffs are employees belonging to the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay retirement allowances and damages for delay based on the respective service period of the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs.

B. As a delegated debt collector, Defendant Plaintiffs are only business income earners who receive performance fees based on the results of collection, not employees under the Labor Standards Act, and there is no fact that Defendant directed and supervised specific tasks in the process of collecting the Plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot be deemed as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

3. Determination

A. The form of contract is not whether the Plaintiffs are workers under the Labor Standards Act or not.