Court holds that lack of remuneration for work under a labor contract excludes social insurance coverage.

The court ruled that the absence of remuneration for services rendered under a labor contract precludes the application of social insurance. The plaintiff argued that the contractual label alone should determine insurance status, while the defendant contended that the lack of payment negated the employment relationship's protective scope. The court decided that without remuneration, the essential element of a labor contract is missing, thereby excluding social insurance obligations.