1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiff on September 11, 2014 confirms that it is null and void.

3...

Basic Facts

The defendant is a company established for the purpose of investment advisory and discretionary investment business.

On April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract of KRW 200 million for annual salary (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) with the Defendant, and subsequently, the same year.

5. From January 1, 200, the defendant's business-general vice-president was employed.

On September 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) indicated Article 7(2) of the Employment Contract of this case (if the Plaintiff’s work performance or work evaluation is deemed to be insufficient or significantly low); (b) Article 7(8) of the Employment Contract of this case (where the Defendant’s work performance is extinguished due to the Defendant’s circumstances or where continuous employment is inevitable due to other reasons) as a ground provision; and (c) decided to terminate the employment contract of this case on the ground that “the Defendant inevitably made it difficult for the Plaintiff to continue employment due to the execution of restructuring for the reduction of expenses due to the continuous operating income, capital erosion, and the inducement of low investment assets” (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”); and (d) notified the Plaintiff on the same day.

The defendant has no rules of employment and service regulations separately.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to whether the plaintiff is a worker in a subordinate relationship with the defendant for the purpose of wages, and the plaintiff's assertion as to the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the main cause of the whole pleadings constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff was only the vice president of the defendant and did not receive any direction and supervision from the defendant in performing the business of attracting investment money.

(2) The following circumstances are revealed in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, i.e., the conclusion that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an employment contract in the form of "employment contract", and the plaintiff's work.