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

A. B, around 14:55 on July 22, 2015, at the site of the “C Elementary School Multi-Purpose Party and School Meal Service Extension Works” (hereinafter “instant construction”) (hereinafter “the instant construction”). Around 14:55, at the site of the “C Elementary School Multi-Purpose Party and School Meal Service Construction Works, he took a string, which was moving for the practical work on the roof slab of the 2nd floor preparation room on the ground, and was moving for the practical work on the part of the 2nd floor. Around 2, 2015, B died of the string of the string unit and the concrete floor below 8 meters away (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Defendant, as the spouse of B (hereinafter “the deceased”), issued a disposition of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that “the deceased’s act on the day of the accident is recognized as having been consistent with the contractor’s status for the contract, and it is difficult to recognize the disaster that occurred in the event as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act because it is difficult to view it as an act in the status of the worker under the Labor Standards

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] . [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On July 20, 2015, Hongsung Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Tech”) contracted for the instant construction work, and on July 20, 2015, the roof board construction work among the said construction works is deemed to be an identity architecture corporation (hereinafter “New Tech”).

(2) On October 4, 2012, the Deceased (hereinafter “D”) (i.e., a specialized construction subcontract business from October 4, 2012) requested the construction of the roof board from the Identity Tech, and (ii) visited the instant construction site with the Plaintiff on July 22, 2015 for the purpose of the actual survey at around 14:00, and (iii) the Deceased was on the part of his/her personnel and the deceased during his/her survey.

(The plaintiff and the deceased tried to visit the house of the deceased in racing after completing the survey work. The name of the 3 deceased and his identity architecture.