1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,367,627 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from June 22, 2018 to August 21, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company that runs claims collection and credit investigation business.

On March 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a debt collection entrustment agreement with the Defendant and was a worker in charge of claims management and collection.

B. On December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff hospitalized D Hospital for the treatment of the clinical cancer, and was hospitalized until December 10, 2014, after receiving the launcing launcing draft physical, etc. on December 5, 2014.

C. From December 9, 2014 to February 8, 2015, the Plaintiff started work again from February 9, 2015, and retired on June 7, 2018.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition】 The evidence Nos. 1-8, 3, 19, entry of evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The key issue is that the Plaintiff is a worker entitled to retirement pay does not dispute between the parties. However, as seen earlier, whether there was a suspension of work for two months from December 9, 2014 to February 8, 2015, which the Plaintiff did not provide labor, and accordingly, when the starting point of counting the number of years of continuous employment is at any time.

If the Plaintiff’s assertion that the starting point of counting the number of years of continuous employment without the suspension of work is considered as March 8, 2013, the amount of retirement benefits recognized as the starting point of starting the number of years of continuous employment is 16,371,322, and the starting point of starting the number of years of continuous employment as the Defendant’s assertion is considered as February 9, 2015, there is no dispute between the parties.

B. According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the debt collection entrustment agreement between the original defendant was terminated as of December 8, 2014.

Therefore, it shall be proved that the plaintiff, claiming that there is no division of work, maintains the continuity and dependence of work even during the period in which the plaintiff is unable to provide labor for disease treatment according to the contents of the debt collection entrustment agreement concluded between the original defendant and the nature of work, which is submitted by the plaintiff.