1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant, who operates the beauty art room of the trade name “D” in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant beauty art room”), and provided labor to and retired from the Defendant as a beauty artist (Hodner) from November 15, 2006 to January 31, 2013.

(b) The amount of retirement allowances calculated on the basis of the average wage during the above service period shall be 30,315,886 won (average wage of KRW 162,486 x 030 days x 30 days (2,270 days ± 365 days).

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence 1

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the Defendant’s duty to pay retirement allowances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a retirement allowance of KRW 30,315,886 and delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Labor Standards Act from February 15, 2013 to the date of complete payment, which is 14 days after the date of retirement of the Plaintiff.

B. (1) The defendant's argument as to the defendant's argument (1) is that the defendant will concurrently operate the beauty art room of this case, and the defendant shall invest real estate and facilities in order to distribute 50% profits by entrusting the operation and management of the facilities. Although the defendant is a partner, he is not in the same position as the commercial rental business operator, and is merely in the substance of the business, and as he actually operates the beauty art room of this case, the defendant is not liable as

E concluded a franchise contract with the Plaintiff and a large number of hedgers and operated. The above franchise contract was a condition to provide the Plaintiff with auxiliary employees, education for new technology and new products, facilities and expendable goods necessary for business, etc., and distributed a certain ratio of profits from sales to the Plaintiff, but it was paid in the form of service fees and profits in two-lanes for tax saving purposes. Since the Plaintiff received profits from sales, the Plaintiff paid personal income tax and value-added tax accordingly.