1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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

The issue of whether a dependent relationship exists shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following various economic and social conditions: (a) whether an employer determines the contents of the work and is subject to rules of employment or service regulations; (b) whether an employer directs and supervises the employer during the performance of the work; (c) whether an employer is bound by the employer to designate working hours and working places; (d) whether an employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account; (e) whether a labor provider voluntarily owns equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc.; (e) whether he/she has any risks, such as creation of profits and losses, etc. from providing labor; (e) whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the work itself; (g) whether the basic salary or fixed wage has been determined; and (e) whether the wage has been withheld from the wage and salary income tax; (g) whether

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29736 Decided December 7, 2006). The Plaintiff asserts that, under his employment by the owner C of the construction site of this case, the Plaintiff constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in subordinate relationship for the purpose of wage.

However, in light of the above legal principles, the foregoing evidence is examined as follows.