The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act shall be determined in accordance with whether a contract form is an employment contract or a delegation contract is an employment contract, and whether a labor provider provided labor in a subordinate relationship to an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace.

In this context, whether a dependent relationship exists shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following economic and social conditions: (a) the employer determines the content of the work; (b) whether the employer is subject to the rules of employment or service regulations; (c) whether the employer designates working hours and working places; (d) whether the employer is bound by the employer; (c) whether the employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account; (d) whether the employer has a risk, such as the creation of profits and losses from the provision of labor; (e) whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the work; (e) whether the basic pay or fixed pay was determined; (e) whether the continuous performance of the provision of labor; and (e) whether the employer has exclusive responsibility for the employer; and (e) whether the employer is recognized as an employee under the statutes on social security system.

However, the circumstances, such as whether a basic wage or fixed wage was determined, whether a labor income tax was withheld, and whether it was recognized as an employee in the social security system, are not recognized in that the employer is highly likely to arbitrarily determine it by taking advantage of the economic superior status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29736, Dec. 7, 2006). 2. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, did not readily deny the nature of workers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da297