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

A. From September 16, 2014 to December 21, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) performed work at the construction site of DD new building that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract from KONs and C to KON Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. On December 21, 2014, at the instant site around 11:00, the Plaintiff: (a) caused an accident that caused the left hand to the left hand on the saw Day; and (b) caused the Plaintiff to cut off the 2 water surface on the left hand; and (c) caused the 3, 4 of the Basaw and the matrine damage to the matrine and the matrine; and (d) caused the instant injury to the Ba

‘A diagnosis' has been received.

C. On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant against the instant injury and disease, but the Defendant rejected the application on June 29, 2015 on the ground that “the Plaintiff does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act.”

hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"

(i) [Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) Party B entered into a construction contract for KONing and Washington with the Plaintiff at the instant site; (b) Party B provided all equipment necessary for the Plaintiff to work at the instant site; (c) Party B managed all revenues and expenditures related to the instant site; and (d) Party B paid wages to the Plaintiff on its own; (c) Party B was a skilled trainee who engaged in a kitchen house construction business for more than 10 years; and (d) the Plaintiff was a skilled trainee; and (e) the Plaintiff’s proposal for the same business is difficult to obtain, the Plaintiff provided labor after being employed by B, and constitutes workers under the Labor Standards Act, who received wages from B.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which was based on the premise that the Plaintiff is not a worker under the Labor Standards Act, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Whether a person constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act is the form of a contract.