2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs a selective distribution business under the trade name of “C”.

The Plaintiff did not report the establishment of an insurance relationship under Article 11 or the business owner subject to Article 5 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act").

B. The network D (EE; hereinafter “the network”) is used in combination with the terms “collection” and “collection” in the delivery and integration records while working as a door-to-door source at the Plaintiff’s workplace from March 13, 2016. However, the term “collection” is used as defined in Article 125 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

The work was performed.

around 16:40 on June 27, 2017, the deceased was used in the course of moving home-to-house excreta loaded on the vehicle from Silung-si F to G Hospital located in the vicinity, but died at around 17:22 on the same day.

C. The autopsy affiliated with the National Institute of Scientific Investigation diagnosed the deceased’s private person as “brupted funeral by heart brue brue and brue brue brue brue.”

The Intervenor joining the Defendant, who is the deceased’s spouse, claimed the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

The Defendant decided to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that proximate causal relation is recognized between the deceased’s work and the death, and paid bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

E. On November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff reported the establishment of employment insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance to the Defendant.

On January 18, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the collection of KRW 47,666,450 equivalent to 50% of the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits, based on Article 26(1)1 of the Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff caused a disaster during the period of neglect in reporting the establishment of the insurance relationship.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and Gap Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 5.