요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an initial medical care benefit application with the Defendant, on September 1, 2015, on the following grounds: (a) on September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Defendant as “the two side pelle pelle pelle pelle,” both of which moved from the 10th rooftop to the 10th floor, with the brick pelle string on the 10th rooftop, to the string of the 10th floor; and (b) the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the two side pelle pelle pelle,” both of which moved to the string to the string of the 10th floor.
On January 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to accept the said application on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff constitutes a co-ordinary official belonging to the beneficiary cancer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “beneficiary cancer”) at the time of the instant accident, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.
B. As the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not provide for an employee entitled to receive insurance benefits under the same Act as well as for an employee under the Labor Standards Act, whether an employee entitled to insurance benefits falls under a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act shall be determined by whether the employee is actually a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act, and whether the employee constitutes a “worker” should be determined by whether the employee provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages at the business or workplace.
The testimony of the witness C alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff provided labor to the employer for the purpose of wages in a subordinate relationship with the business or workplace at the time of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Rather, in light of the evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and witness D’s testimony, the Plaintiff appears to have the overall purport of the pleadings.