1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 31:

The plaintiff operates the PT and person-train Center in the name of "C" in the Seoul mid-gu O, Seoul, and the defendant from April 17, 2017 to the above PT and the above PT and person-train in the PT from around April 17, 2017, the plaintiff agreed to resign to the plaintiff on June 28, 2018, and the plaintiff did not attend the work until June 30, 2018 and did not attend the work from the next day.

B. 1) On May 8, 2020, the facts constituting a violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Act on Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits against the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff did not specify in writing working conditions while entering into an employment contract with the Defendant).

The Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant’s annual unused allowance of KRW 1,071,396 and retirement allowance of KRW 3,033,715 within 14 days from the date of retirement without agreement on extension of the payment period.

) In the above case, the judgment of conviction of a fine of one million won was rendered (this Court Decision 2019No. 808). The plaintiff argued that "the defendant was a personal business operator who entered into a service contract with an individual radar at the above fee center and received fees from customers and does not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act." However, in the above judgment, "the defendant was judged to be a worker under the Labor Standards Act in view of the fact that "the defendant was not actually engaged in duties as a service contract or an individual business operator, but rather, provided labor to the plaintiff as an employer in subordinate relationship for the purpose of compensation for labor."

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. A. One month has passed since the Defendant expressed his/her intent to terminate the labor contract. The Defendant unilaterally expressed his/her intention to resign to the Plaintiff on June 28, 2018 while working at the said Traice Center, and instead instead did not take over and transfer the guidance and duties of the members he/she had directed.