요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits for the instant disposition, “Around May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff was suffering from a de facto water accident in front of a factory (B) where he entered the military base on May 20, 2015, and the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the medical care benefits for “the divers of the left side and the 3, 4, and 5 balance pressure column, 3, 4, and 5 double water dives of the left side, the left side divers of the bar, and 2 balance
(hereinafter “instant medical care benefit application”). On June 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits on the ground that it is difficult to regard the Plaintiff as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she is a relative living together with the business owner, but constitutes a worker since he/she provided full-time labor under the direction and supervision of the business owner as the same as the general worker from May 1, 2015 to the date of the disaster, and received wages (100,000 won per day)
The instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.
B. Determination 1) The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not have any other provision for an employee entitled to receive insurance benefits under the same Act as "worker under the Labor Standards Act". Thus, the issue of whether an employee entitled to insurance benefits constitutes "worker under the Labor Standards Act" should be determined depending on whether he/she provided work to an employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages at the business or workplace in substance. 2) In light of the following, the testimony of the witness C alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff provided work in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages at the business or workplace, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.