1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 31, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired the eligibility as an employment provided policyholder under the National Health Insurance Act on the premise that he/she worked as a full-time employee at B (hereinafter “instant workplace”). From that time, the Plaintiff paid health insurance premiums under the National Health Insurance Act and long-term care insurance premiums under the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged as an employment provided policyholder.

B. On June 21, 2016, the Defendant conducted guidance and inspection on the instant workplace.

On the 22th of the same month, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff and the representative C of the instant workplace of the scheduled imposition of retroactive taxation, such as deprivation of employment provided policyholder qualification, health insurance premium, etc., on the ground that “the Plaintiff was confirmed to have worked as an emergency worker at the instant workplace

C. On August 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to lose the Plaintiff’s qualification as an employment provided policyholder retroactively to the Plaintiff as of August 31, 2009. On August 22, 2016, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 6,43,70 on the Plaintiff, from August 22, 2013 to July 2, 2016, the increase in health insurance premiums from the employment provided policyholder to the employment provided policyholder, to the Plaintiff, KRW 421,510, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) is subject to the imposition of each increase in health insurance premiums and long-term care insurance premiums.

The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the disposition of deprivation of employment provided policyholder qualification, filed an objection with the Defendant around August 19, 2016, but was dismissed on October 27 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff worked four times a week at the instant workplace from August 2009, and worked for not less than 40 hours a week. Indonesia, the Plaintiff was performing the duties of importing inspection equipment, purchasing parts and raw materials, price negotiations, patent applications, etc. from the Republic of Korea and Japan.