The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court did not deem that the Plaintiff et al. were subject to specific command and supervision by the Defendant during the course of performing his duties, and provided the Defendant with a uniform of work or partially subsidizing insurance premiums and commercial assistance fees.

Even if this is done in consideration of the promotion of sales activities, and it cannot be viewed as being subject to any instruction or control in work, etc., the plaintiff judged that it cannot be viewed as providing labor to the defendant for the purpose of wages in subordinate relationship, and it does not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to workers under the Labor Standards Act, or by exceeding the bounds of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.