The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, are all relevant.

1. According to the record of confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts may be recognized:

On July 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs, who entered into a delegation contract with the Defendant and were retired as debt collectors, filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of retirement allowances under the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, claiming that they are subordinate to the Defendant and provided labor constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

B. On August 17, 2018, the first instance court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiffs to pay statutory retirement allowances (the Plaintiff D partially winnings and the rest of the Plaintiffs in full winning) on the grounds that the Plaintiffs are workers subject to the Labor Standards Act.

C. The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and filed an appeal with this court. On January 7, 2020, the court rendered a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs were workers under the Labor Standards Act, and thus rendered a judgment subject to a retrial revoking the part against the Plaintiffs among the judgment of the first instance and dismissing all the Plaintiffs’ claims.

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial and filed a final appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2020Na209051, but on May 14, 2020, the said final appeal was dismissed as a continuous trial and became final and conclusive.

2. Grounds for retrial and determination

A. The plaintiffs' grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act are the grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiffs' grounds for retrial acknowledged the worker nature of F, H and L in the first instance court in charge of collection of claims against the Z bank. On the other hand, the plaintiffs' workers were denied

However, the judgment subject to a review omitted the judgment on the grounds and reasons that the recognition of worker status varies depending on the type of the claim that the claims collector takes charge.

Therefore, the judgment subject to review shall be determined on important matters that affect the judgment.