1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The details and details of the decision made by the reexamination and the defendant auxiliary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") are a company running an insurance business with approximately 4,400 business places, employing approximately 584 persons.

At around 2005, the Intervenor started to establish a sales organization of high academic background male insurance solicitors.

On July 15, 2005, the Intervenor entered into a contract for commission of insurance solicitors with the Plaintiff on July 15, 2005 and “BM” by reducing convenience to the branch of a branch of a business with the status of insurance planners.

(M) The main contents of the commission contract are as shown in the attached Form). The intervenor, after the commission contract, had the plaintiff work as a branch office B.

Then, the Plaintiff renewed the contract with the Intervenor several times, and the Plaintiff, from September 2014 to September 2012, changed the Intervenor’s business division to the HA business division, and around September 2012, the Plaintiff changed the FP business division to the HA business division belonging to the FP business headquarters.

Work as the branch office of affiliated C branch office.

On December 1, 2014, the intervenor terminated the MF commissioning contract with the plaintiff on December 1, 2014, and the plaintiff's position is "FP" by reducing the plaintiff's position from "BM"'s insurance solicitor's convenience.

The change was made to the court.

On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed,” and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on January 28, 2015 on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act.”

On March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground on May 15, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] . [This case’s ground for recognition .] - Without dispute, entry in Gap’s 1, 9, 23 evidence (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s 1, Eul’s 1, 13 evidence, and oral argument.