The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding of facts, which recognized E as a worker.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be made based on whether the form of a contract is an employment contract or a delegation contract is an employment contract, or whether the substance of the relationship to provide labor is an employment provider’s subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages in the business or workplace.

In this context, whether a dependent relationship exists shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the economic and social conditions, such as the employer’s determination of the content of the work, whether the employer is subject to the rules of employment or service regulations, whether the employer is subject to considerable direction and supervision during the performance of the work, whether the employer is bound by the employer’s designation of working hours and working place, whether the employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account, whether the employer has a risk, such as the creation of profits and losses from the provision of labor, whether the nature of remuneration is the subject of the work, whether the nature of the wage was determined by the basic wage or fixed wage, whether the labor income tax was collected at source, whether the continuity of the relationship of provision of labor, the degree thereof, and whether the status of the employee is recognized as a worker under the statutes on social security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da59146, Jan. 25, 2017).