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

A. At around 15:10 on September 23, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed on the top of the roof sand site 2.7 meters at the 2.7-meter bottom while the Plaintiff was working to attach heat to the 1st floor compost in the site of Asan City, B, and 3 lots of ground C construction; and (b) applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant around September 26, 2016 after undergoing a diagnosis of “the roof was cut down on the top of the roof sand site 2.7 meters.”

B. On December 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff does not constitute a worker who provides labor under the control and management of an employer for the purpose of earning wages under Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, entries and images of Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion and team members were ordered from D to perform specific work related to heating construction, and were under the direction and supervision as to the situation of work and completion of work. The plaintiff's issuance of a tax invoice after a separate business registration is merely based on the demand for accounting by the construction company or the sales agency of heating materials. Thus, the plaintiff is a worker who actually provides labor in accordance with D's work order, but the disposition of this case based on the different premise by the defendant is unlawful.

B. Determination 1 as to whether the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, which is subject to protection, is an employment contract.