1. The defendant shall pay each of the plaintiffs the amount of the retirement allowance stated in the separate sheet and each of the above amounts.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around November 5, 2010, the Defendant is a company established by spin-off the assets management (debt collection and credit investigation) of the Korea Credit Rating Information Company, which carries out debt collection, credit information investigation, etc.

B. The Plaintiffs entered into a delegated claims collector agreement with each Korea Credit Rating Information Company or each Defendant Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendant, etc.”) to accept delegations of the following matters, and took charge of the management and collection of claims by the Defendant, etc. during the period of service specified in the attached Form:

The fact that there is no dispute over the collection of claims, the demand for repayment, and the tracking of the whereabouts of persons related to the obligation to provide counseling, the preparation and management of claims collection and the payment plan of claims for visits and property investigation and the post-management of claims, the attraction of the receipt of claims and the attraction and receipt of the receipt of claims (based on recognition), Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Assertion and determination

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1 falls under workers who provided labor for the purpose of wages in subordinate relationship to the defendant, etc., and the defendant is obligated to pay each amount of money and its delay damages as stated in the separate sheet of retirement allowance to the plaintiffs. 2) The defendant's assertion that the defendant et al. entered into a delegation contract with the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot be viewed as workers under the Labor Standards Act because the plaintiffs' claim in this case causes serious managerial difficulties to erase new financial burdens unexpected to the defendant. Thus, it goes against the principle of good faith as it is not acceptable in light of the definition and equity.

B. Determination 1 whether the Plaintiffs are workers under the Labor Standards Act is an employment contract.