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

A. From February 8, 2011 to June 16, 2011, the Plaintiff served as the head of a tree team at the construction site of a new building in the Jeonju Building (hereinafter “instant site”) that was implemented under a subcontract for the construction of a limited liability company.

B. On April 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a medical care benefit application with the Defendant on August 18, 2011, on the ground that he/she was diagnosed of the instant accident, which was caused by an accident that was coming beyond vadididi (hereinafter “the instant accident”), which was fluencing in the instant field by coming up with the 3th floor production on April 22, 2011, and vadididi, from the stairs (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred on September 21, 201 in the course of investigating the circumstances of the accident, and that the Plaintiff had no fact working at the instant site on April 22, 2011. As a result of confirming the Plaintiff’s output, the Plaintiff’s assertion was modified to the effect that the instant accident occurred on September 21, 2011 during the process of questioning with the investigator belonging to the Defendant on September 15, 2011.

C. On October 12, 201, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff is a business owner who received the supply of molded wood from piracy construction, and there is no ground to recognize the Plaintiff as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the date of the occurrence is stated in the medical care benefits application form on April 22, 201, and the fact that there was no output based on the output, even though it was verified at the time of investigation, and the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be trusted by changing the date of the occurrence without any special reason.”

On January 9, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection on January 9, 2012, and the Board of Audit and Inspection held that the Plaintiff was in the position of a field manager or a worker who provided labor for wage purposes rather than the business owner who implemented the project under his/her own responsibility. However, on April 201, 201.