1. The defendant,

A. 24,593,272 won to Plaintiff A and 6% per annum from November 16, 2018 to November 30, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant concluded an entrustment contract with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) as a corporation engaged in the installation, sale, service, maintenance and repair business related to air conditioners, and the system quality control.

B. The Plaintiffs concluded an entrustment contract with the Defendant for the quality control service in the system (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) and performed the quality control duties on the system that the F sold and installed.

The Plaintiffs have renewed the contract on a yearly basis with the Defendant, and the period during which the consignment contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant has been maintained is as follows:

The original term of the entrustment contract between February 11, 2013 and November 15, 2018, B B from February 7, 2013 to June 30, 2018, C from April 8, 2013 to March 31, 2018, and B from March 31, 2018 [based on recognition] subparagraph 1, 2, and subparagraph 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) of subparagraph A, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Notwithstanding the form of commission contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the plaintiffs are workers who provide labor to the defendant in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages, and the defendant is entitled to receive retirement allowances as stipulated in the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

B. The nature of the instant consignment contract by the Defendant is a labor contract, and the Plaintiffs were registered as an individual business operator, and on their own account, managed the entrusted business freely without receiving specific instructions and supervision from the Defendant, without regulating the Defendant’s service regulations.

The plaintiffs are not workers, and there is no reason to accept the plaintiffs' retirement allowance claim.

3. Whether the plaintiffs constitute workers

A. Whether a person is a worker under the relevant legal doctrine is the substance of a labor provision relationship rather than whether a contract is an employment contract, a contract, or a delegation contract.