요양결정취소 및 부당이득징수결정처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the cutting of the upper right bridge, etc., by spreading water into the wall of the building at the site of the construction of new housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) located in the Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Busan-gun, which is constructed by B (hereinafter “instant construction”).
On May 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits with the Defendant, who was employed by him/her as a recipient of the wood-frame construction work during the instant construction work, claiming that he/she was injured while working as a tree at the site of the instant construction work. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff deemed that the Plaintiff was employed by D at the site of the instant construction work and was suffering from occupational accidents, and paid KRW 39,035,070 in total, including medical care benefits89,80, temporary disability compensation benefits, and KRW 30,035,070,070.
After all, on July 28, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the decision to approve the above medical care benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff had received medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits by deceiving the Defendant as if the Plaintiff were an employee at the construction site of this case while receiving the instant construction from the owner B as a result of an investigation into whether the insurance benefits were illegally received, and that the Defendant issued a disposition to collect 78,070,140 won, which is the total amount of the insurance benefits the Plaintiff received pursuant to Article 84(1)1 of the Industrial
(hereinafter referred to as "each of the dispositions of this case"). 【The ground for recognition of Gap's 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not employed by D, but is paid KRW 2.10,00 per day under employment by B, and is in charge of supervising the construction work at the construction site of this case. As such, the Plaintiff constitutes workers at the construction site of this case. Each disposition of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff does not constitute workers at the construction site of this case is unlawful.
Even if the Plaintiff does not constitute a worker at the construction site of this case.