The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal E is not that the defendant employed as a director of the company operated by the defendant (misunderstanding of facts). 2. Determination

A. Whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act ought to be determined based on whether a worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace, rather than in the form of a contract. Whether a worker is subordinate to the above mentioned above ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the employer’s contents of work determined the work; (b) the employer is subject to the rules of employment or personnel regulations; (c) the employer designates working hours and working places; (d) the employer is bound by the employer; (d) whether the employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account; (e) whether the employer owns equipment, raw materials or working tools; (e) whether the employer has a risk, such as the creation of profit and loss by providing labor; (e) whether the nature of remuneration was determined by the nature of the work itself; and (e) whether the income tax was collected as a source of the income tax; and (e) whether the continuous relationship of provision and the existence and degree of exclusive affiliation to the employer; and (e) economic and social conditions such as whether the status of the social security system is recognized.

However, the circumstances such as whether the basic or fixed wage has been determined, whether the labor income tax has been collected at source, and whether the social security system has been recognized as an employee are highly likely to be arbitrarily determined by the employer by taking advantage of the economic superior position, should not readily deny the nature of the employee by itself, and as a whole, work in the subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wage.