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 October 17, 2016, the Plaintiff arranged Schlage of ready-mixed vehicles at the site of the construction of a new house located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”) and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on October 19, 2016, following the diagnosis by the head of the water department 3, 4, annual installments, deficit in the part of the water department 3, 4, 3, 4, and 4, in the right part of the water department, and the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on October 19, 2016.

B. Accordingly, on December 13, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff is a business operator who runs a construction business after registering his/her business with the trade name called “C on November 1, 2015, and is a daily worker after registering his/her business, without any details reported employment insurance.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 2, 3, and 4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a labor contract between D and D with the content that the Plaintiff received KRW 300,000 per day from October 1, 2016 to December 15, 2016 from the construction site of this case, and that it constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to D in a subordinate relationship. However, the Defendant’s disposition based on the different premise is unlawful.

B. In order to become a beneficiary of insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Plaintiff shall be an employee as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act at the time of the accident. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8, and the entire purport of the evidence Nos. 6 and the entire arguments, the Plaintiff is a person who runs the construction business under the trade name of “C” and is the owner of the instant construction business.