2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was employed as a daily employed worker at the presidential equipment of the company, and served as a pipeline hole at the construction site of the B apartment of the company, U.S. (hereinafter “U.S. construction”), which was executed by the company of U.S., the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits to the Defendant on the ground that the instant accident constitutes an occupational accident that occurred within the controlled area of the business area, on November 1, 2014, fells against vadi in order to go up to a level of 1.2 meters wide from the point where a passenger car was parked (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On December 31, 2014, the Defendant issued an approval for non-approval for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The instant accident occurred while moving to a place where the Plaintiff voluntarily parked in violation of the business owner’s specific direction despite having prepared a separate parking lot in his/her workplace and provided education on the use of the parking lot. In view of the location of the site as the main entrance to the site of the construction site from the outer boundary installed at the workplace to the site of the construction site, it is difficult to view it as the scope of the area of the actual business site, and it is confirmed that construction works for an apartment site located adjacent to the site of the construction site of the apartment at another workplace (road and small river) in order to construct the apartment site located adjacent to the site of the

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 9, Evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff parked a car in the instant temporary parking lot on the date of the instant accident and entered the site by using a simple passage. At the time of leaving the parking lot, the Plaintiff fell in the process of leaving the parking lot beyond multiples in order to leave the parking lot without going through the removal of a simple passage.