The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasons why this court shall state on this case are as follows. The reason why this court is stated is that "in the first place" of the 8th judgment of the court of first instance, "in the first place" of the 22th judgment, and it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition or dismissal as set forth in the 2th judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance

2.The following shall be added to the fourth fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance that is added or added:

In addition, the defendant asserts that even if the plaintiff is recognized as an employee, each of the above amounts should be excluded from the average wage, since discount incentives, product loss coverage incentives, and incentives paid by the defendant are not the average wage but the amount of incentives for sales promotion rather than the amount of labor.

The 5th to 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed by the following:

In light of the above legal principles, the above facts as to whether the Plaintiff constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act and the evidence as seen earlier, and the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9 through 14 (including the serial numbers) and Eul’s 11, 1213, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 39, 42, 50, 55, 57, 62, and 65 as well as the overall purport of video and pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that each evidence submitted by the Plaintiff constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the Defendant for the purpose of wages, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement allowances on the premise that the Plaintiff constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act.