요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. At around 14:30 on April 14, 2006, the Plaintiff sustained an injury due to an accident involving the Plaintiff’s trees using the electric saw, which used a floodgate repair work, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction”) near a reservoir located near the 68,132 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”).
B. On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on June 28, 2012, following the instant accident: (a) the escape certificate of conical signboards No. 3-4, damage to incomplete light numbers; (b) negorating and ledger; (c) incomplete biode and mathrogate; (d) confluence of the cinary landscape; and (e) fluoral disease.
C. On August 2, 2012, the Defendant rejected the application for medical care benefits on the ground that “The construction site of this case is excluded from the total construction cost that cannot be protected by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which is less than KRW 20 million, and the Plaintiff is deemed to have been in the position of an employer, not an employee who provided labor for the purpose of wages.”
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On April 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the Defendant for the instant disposition, but was dismissed, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. 1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The clan G, a clan to which the Plaintiff belongs, as the broker of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “family member of the Plaintiff”).
) and Taeyang Construction Co., Ltd. (trade name after alteration: Ghana Construction Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “Ga Construction”)
The contract was concluded between verbally with the Plaintiff for construction cost of KRW 30 million, and the Plaintiff, along with C, received KRW 100,000 per day as a daily daily worker belonging to AB, as a daily worker belonging to AB.