요양불승인처분취소
1. On July 26, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition to pay a site for medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff, who was an employee of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), filed an application for medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits with the Defendant, on the ground that he/she suffered from the left-hand left-hand left-hand renal damage, the damage of the left-hand renal disorder, the left-hand renal damage, the left-hand renal damage, the left-hand renal renal failure, and the left-hand renal renal failure.
B. However, on July 26, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff, as a land owner, did not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act, the Defendant issued a disposition on the site payment of medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Fact-finding 1) Persons in charge of delivery service in the non-party company are classified into three categories. Types 1: A labor contract is concluded with the non-party company; persons in charge of delivery service with a vehicle owned by the non-party company (C, D, E): They enter into a labor contract with the non-party company; persons in charge of delivery service with a vehicle owned by the non-party company (F) enter into a contract for management and operation of the vehicle; persons in charge of delivery service (G, H, I) who enter into the non-party company; persons in Type 3 of the person in charge of delivery service (G, H, and I) immediately leave the office without need to return to the non-party company; persons who are not covered by the industrial accident insurance; however, those who fall in Types 1, 2 are not covered by the industrial accident insurance, return to the non-party company after completing the delivery service; and they are in charge of delivery service other than the industrial accident insurance; and the plaintiff is also in charge of delivery service from the non-party company 21 to 26.28.
3. The Plaintiff on March 1, 2017