1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Plaintiff’s assertion

From April 1, 2012 to January 6, 2015, the Plaintiff, employed the Defendant from the inspection “D” in Jeju City, provided the Defendant with labor, such as the management of believerss for 12 hours or more each day from the inspection “D”.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff wages, retirement allowances, and damages for delay, such as those stated in the purport of the claim.

Even if the plaintiff and the defendant's employment relationship are not recognized, the defendant obtained the benefit of the amount equivalent to the wage, etc. due to the plaintiff's labor without any legal ground, and as a result, the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount, the defendant is obligated to return the benefit equivalent to the wage, etc. to the plaintiff pursuant to

Judgment

According to the overall purport of testimony and pleadings by the witness E of the court below, it is recognized that the plaintiff performed the work of management of new maps, preliminary progress, cleaning, etc. in D operated by the defendant, according to the statement of the claim for wages and retirement allowances (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) No. 2, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleadings by the

However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of testimony and pleading by witness E of the first instance trial, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone provided labor under employment in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① At the time of transfer from G, an inspector F, to D, the Plaintiff did not specifically set forth the amount to be received as compensation for work with the Defendant at the time of transfer, and the Plaintiff did not regularly receive the amount from the Defendant for about two years and nine months during which he had been in D.

The plaintiff seems to have received KRW 80,000 per month from the defendant on an irregular basis, but it is about to provide labor for D voluntarily rather than as remuneration for labor.