The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that D does not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act in light of the form of employment, and does not constitute a person entitled to retirement allowances, given that he/she did not work for at least 15 hours a week average in July and August 2017.

In addition, since the amount paid to D in addition to the basic salary is not ordinary wage, it should be excluded from the calculation of the retirement allowance, the judgment of the court below which convicted all of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act should be determined in substance, rather than whether a contract constitutes an employment contract or a contract for work, depending on whether a worker provided work to an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or a workplace.

In this context, whether a dependent relationship exists shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following economic and social conditions: (a) whether an employer determines the content of the work; (b) whether an employer is subject to the rules of employment or the rules of service; (c) whether an employer designates working hours and working places; (d) whether an employer is bound by the employer; (e) whether an employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account; (e) whether a labor provider voluntarily has a risk, such as the creation of profits and losses from providing labor; (e) whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the work; (g) whether the basic pay or fixed wage has been determined; and (g) whether the wage has been withheld from the wage and salary income tax; and (v) whether the employer has continued to provide labor; and (v) whether the employer has exclusive responsibility for the employer; and (v) whether an

Supreme Court Decision 200