손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 2-1 to 7, and Eul evidence 3-3, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments.
At around 09:30 on October 19, 201, the Plaintiff was at the site of “C Installation” (hereinafter “instant construction”) located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant construction”). As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the structural cutting, permanent cutting, and breaking down between the emulsion and bovine spongiformiformiforms, in detail falling short of the detailed details, erosion and cerebral throst damage, erosion, the uppermost frame, the uppermost frame, the uppermost frame, the uppermost frame, the uppermost frame of the uppermost, the emulnes, the emulnes, the emulh, the emulh, the emulh, the emulh, the emulh, the emulh, the emulh, and the emulh.
B. On January 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service by asserting that he/she suffered such injury as above due to the instant accident, but the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, on February 1, 2012, approved the Plaintiff’s non-approval of medical care benefits on the ground that “the Plaintiff constitutes a business owner who was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the instant construction work as D, and is not a worker
C. After that, on September 3, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the first disposition to grant medical care benefit non-approval (2012Gudan20802) with the Seoul Administrative Court, asserting that the above disposition by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation was unlawful, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim on April 26, 2013 on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not the Defendant’s employee but the business owner who subcontracted the instant construction work from the Plaintiff,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the contractor, who is the contractor, since the Defendant entered into a subcontract in the form of “self-drawing” which is the labor contractor.