The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal D shall not be considered as a worker subject to retirement allowance payment or a continuous worker for the period as stated in the judgment of the court below, because he worked only upon request of the defendant by making the benefit as a daily allowance basis D.

2. Determination

A. In light of the relevant legal doctrine, even though it is in the form of a relevant worker, it is a worker employed on a daily basis.

Even if the employment contract is continued without suspending the employment relationship, it shall be considered as a regular worker, and if the employment contract is renewed after the expiration of the employment contract, or the employment contract is repeatedly concluded on the same condition, it shall be determined whether the continuous employment as retirement allowance is required and the number of years of continuous employment should be determined by adding the renewed or repeated employment contract period.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da26168, Jul. 11, 1995). Furthermore, there is a certain period of gap between a renewed or repeated labor contract.

Even if the period of employment contract is not longer than the total period of employment contract, and there are circumstances such as seasonal factors, vacation period, etc., or break period for standby shocking, etc., if it is deemed that there are reasonable grounds for not providing labor or not paying wages during that period, it is reasonable to view that the continuity of employment relationship is maintained even during that period.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29736 Decided December 7, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da58490 Decided December 9, 2010, etc.) B.

In light of the above legal principles as to the grounds for appeal, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the amount of D’s benefits of KRW 2.2 million to KRW 2.3 million on a regular basis at the 27th day of each month, which appears to have been determined on a monthly basis, and ② the Defendant is independent of China’s nationality.