1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on April 26, 2013 by the above court with respect to the case of D D's auction of real estate in Incheon District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant auction of real estate rent (the same court F overlaps; hereinafter “instant auction”) with the Incheon District Court D, based on the right to collateral security on real estate owned by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

B. In the instant auction procedure, on April 26, 2013, the auction court: (a) distributed KRW 211,686,468 to the Plaintiff among KRW 442,129,969, the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution; (b) KRW 65,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 35,555,684 to the second order (the mortgagee); and (c) drafted a distribution schedule with the content that the Plaintiffs did not fully distribute dividends (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

C. The Plaintiff’s designated party B appeared on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, and stated an objection against KRW 35,080,000 out of the amount of dividends to the Defendant, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the instant court on May 2, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 3, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that (i) since they are the workers of the non-party company, they are excluded from the dividend of the auction procedure of this case. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that it is reasonable to exclude the plaintiffs from the dividend of the auction procedure of this case because they are not the workers of the non-party company.

⑵ 판단 ㈎ 근로기준법 상의 근로자에 해당하는지 여부를 판단함에 있어서는 그 계약의 형식이 민법 상의 고용계약인지 또는 도급계약인지에 관계없이 그 실질에 있어 근로자가 사업 또는 사업장에 임금을 목적으로 종속적인 관계에서 사용자에게 근로를 제공하였는지 여부에 따라 판단하여야 하고, 그 종속적인 관계가 있는지 여부를 판단함에 있어서는 업무의 내용이 사용자에 의하여 정하여지고 취업규칙 또는 복무(인사)규정...