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

A. On May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the fourth floor building located in the East Sea, B (hereinafter “instant building”) and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant after receiving a diagnosis of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the accident where a bridge was transferred (hereinafter “instant accident”) while entering the electric light line (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (b) the details of the bridge, closed, the bridge, the right side bridge, the right side bridge, and the right side bombing function of the instant accident (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

B. On September 6, 2017, the Defendant: (a) ordered the Plaintiff to remove the interior of the building; (b) internal interior interior interior decoration works; (c) electricity, fire-fighting, and other works (including electrical extension; fire-fighting equipment; (d) videophone installation; and (e) electric, fire-fighting, and other works, including the replacement installation work, prior to the occurrence of the instant accident (hereinafter “instant replacement installation work”); and (e) electric, fire-fighting, and other works, including the replacement installation work, are confirmed to have been directly contracted to the Plaintiff by the ordering person; and (e) the replacement installation work in the instant case was confirmed to have been carried out after receiving the relevant expenses. Accordingly, the instant replacement installation work was a separate work that does not fall under the category of the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works executed by the business owner E (hereinafter “the instant replacement installation work”). Accordingly, the instant work constitutes a disaster that the Plaintiff was directly contracted by the ordering person, and thus, did not constitute an employee under relevant statutes (hereinafter “instant”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Defendant, but from the Defendant, the Plaintiff provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the purpose of paying deposits at the time of the instant accident, and the Labor Standards Act.