2. The costs of lawsuit are all included in the part resulting from the participation.

A. The Plaintiff is running the business of installing exhibitions in the indoors using wooden products manufactured directly after the establishment of March 1, 2008.

B. The Defendant: (a) did not include the amount equivalent to the wages of the daily worker employed by the Plaintiff while running the foregoing business in total [352,772,50 won; (b) 229,432,709 won; and (c) 221,92,500 won; and (b) 56,415,000 won; (c) 391,587,500 won; and (d) imposed the imposition of the employment insurance premium and the employment insurance premium for 2015,278,200 won for each industrial accident on the statement of manufacturing cost in 2013; and (b) did not include the amount equivalent to the above amount equivalent to the amount equivalent to the industrial accident insurance premium and the employment insurance premium for 203 years, 2015, 206, 2067, 207, 20816, 206, 2016.

C. On October 1, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 12, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion to the purport of the instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1 The first assertion entered into a contract with a wooden technician to install an exhibition business, and accordingly, paid the service cost, and included the amount of the service cost as the cost of the Plaintiff’s production cost or the service cost.

However, the above.