The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The main point of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the Defendant, as the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the Center of this case”), entered into a delegation contract with the Rabner, and thus, the trabner provided the Defendant with labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages.

shall not be deemed to exist.

FC(hereinafter referred to as “FC”) on U is a mere fact that the FC is engaged in the duties of inducing its members to join, and therefore the trapers and work structure are the same. Therefore, the FC has worked as FC.

U also provided labor to the defendant in a subordinate relationship with the purpose of wage.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Since the Defendant did not enter into a contract with V only for cleaning services and did not give specific directions, the Defendant provided the Defendant with labor in a subordinate relationship with V for the purpose of wages.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Judgment

Determination of whether a worker constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act as to the claim on radars shall be based on whether a worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages at a business or workplace. Determination of whether a dependent relationship above exists shall be based on the content of the work, and shall be based on the employer’s determination of the work, and shall be subject to the rules of employment or service regulations, etc., and shall be subject to considerable direction and supervision by the employer in the course of performing the work, whether the employer designates working hours and place of work, whether the employer is bound by the employer, whether the employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account, whether the employer is able to independently engage in the business, creation of profits through the provision of labor, and occurrence of losses, and whether the remuneration nature is the subject of the work itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do777, Sept. 7, 20