1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim and the instant principal lawsuit by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. From January 1, 2011, the Plaintiff operated the beauty art room in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, “D” (the trade name before the modification; hereinafter “Embry room”).

B. From January 19, 201, the Defendant, from around January 19, 201, served as a beauty artist (Hodier) at the instant beauty art room, concluded a contract on entrustment of business with the Plaintiff on March 1, 2013, as indicated in the separate sheet with the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). On December 6, 2013, upon the Plaintiff’s notification, the Defendant ceased to engage in the beauty service of this case, and the instant contract was terminated.

C. After the termination of the instant contract, the Defendant opened the beauty art room (hereinafter “Defendant’s beauty art room”) of approximately 270 meters in a straight line from the beauty art room of this case around March 2, 2014 to the present day after opening the beauty art room (hereinafter “F”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's main claim for judgment on the defendant's counterclaim is closely related to "the defendant's status as the defendant's worker". Thus, the plaintiff's main claim is examined from the defendant's counterclaim claim.

1) As the Defendant retired from the position of his employee, the Plaintiff, the employer, is obligated to pay retirement pay and compensation for delay thereof to the Defendant. 2) The Plaintiff’s Defendant merely performed the entrusted duties in the capacity of franchise pursuant to the instant contract, and thus, cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s employee.

B. Whether the Defendant constitutes a worker under the relevant legal doctrine as to whether the Defendant constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act is an employment contract or a contract for employment, in substance, the employee’s subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace.