1. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant (H Co., Ltd. before the change on March 24, 2016) is a company that engages in credit investigation business, debt collection business, etc. with a credit information business license granted by the Financial Services Commission under the Credit Information Use and Protection Act on November 26, 199.

B. On July 1, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation agreement with the Defendant on debt collection (hereinafter “instant contract”), and retired from the position of the chief of the department on October 31, 2016, while taking charge of the Defendant’s strong branch office’s debt collection business at the Gangseo Branch Office.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim for retirement allowance

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that "the plaintiff is a worker employed in the defendant company in the form of a delegation contract, but in performing his/her duties, he/she provides labor in a de facto subordinate relationship, such as being subject to specific direction and supervision by the defendant, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay legal retirement allowances

B. Whether a person constitutes a worker in an individual case disputing the employee status of the claim collection agency is bound to vary depending on specific facts and degree of proof, such as the type of work, at the branch office and branch office of the claims collection agency to which he/she belongs.

As a result of a review, it is found that the claims collection agency did not have a duty to attend the claims collection agency every day while maintaining contractual relationship with the claims collection agency under the command and supervision of the claims collection agency during the period of maintaining contractual relationship, and it is difficult to recognize the nature of the worker because of the excessive amount of performance fees, etc., or only the parties liable to prove the nature of the worker of the claims collection agency submit as evidence only precedents, etc. of other companies in the course of litigation.