1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 1999, the Defendant is a company engaged in credit investigation business, debt collection business, etc. with a license for credit information business under the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act from the Financial Services Commission.

B. Since the Plaintiff entered into a delegation agreement on debt collection with the Defendant on February 1, 2006 (hereinafter “instant delegation agreement”), the Plaintiff retired on May 31, 2014 when the Defendant was in charge of collecting claims that the creditors accepted from the creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a worker under the Labor Standards Act, since the Plaintiff joined the Defendant in the form of a delegation contract, but provided labor to the Defendant in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of actual wages, such as being under considerable direction and supervision from the Defendant in performing

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiff under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not manage the Plaintiff’s root or did not issue specific business instructions in relation to debt collection, and only provided the Plaintiff with the place of work and equipment so that the Plaintiff can smoothly perform delegated affairs. The Plaintiff’s debt collectors, such as the Plaintiff, received fees in proportion to the performance of debt collection without basic pay or fixed pay. The amount is large for each debt collection source and period, and the amount is not determined depending on the quantity and quality of labor provided. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a worker under the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the Plaintiff is a worker, the Plaintiff concluded a delegation agreement with the Defendant and concluded a delegation agreement with the Defendant, which is lower than the earned income tax.