요양급여불승인처분취소
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part concerning Plaintiff C is revoked, and the Defendant against Plaintiff C on January 29, 2013.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. 1) Escari Science Co., Ltd. awarded a contract for the construction of a cosmetic plant located in Yeongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, a Dai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”) to the company (business owner name B) named “D.” (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Plaintiffs, along with A, the Plaintiff’s father, were involved in the instant construction at the site of the instant construction on September 19, 2012, falling during the instant construction at around October 10, 2012 (hereinafter “instant accident”), and Plaintiff B was faced with spinal damage, ebal damage, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.
3) On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiffs and A filed an application for medical care benefits for each of the above injury and disease with the Defendant. (b) On January 29, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the application for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that “the Plaintiff and A do not have any acquisition details related to the 4th insurance, and it is difficult to be deemed a trade partner in the form of distributing the remainder after deducting various expenses from the subcontract,” and that it is difficult to be deemed a trade partner in the form of distributing the remainder after deducting various expenses from the subcontract.” [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute with the lower court, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and evidence Nos. 1
each entry of this section.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs' assertion is that the plaintiffs' father who is the plaintiff's father has caused a lot of damages to Gap and therefore they have registered business under the name of the plaintiff Eul. Accordingly, only the plaintiff Eul is a business owner under the name of Eul, and the actual business owner of Eul is the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs provided labor in accordance with the direction and supervision of Gap and received irregular wages according to the results of 120,000 won and work each month, and they operated D as a partnership business.