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 June 20, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for the approval of the medical care with the Defendant on July 5, 201, alleging that, while he/she was working for the Plaintiff in Gwangju Mine District C, he/she suffered each girical and girical image, etc. by explosion of scrap metal products that were melted into a high-level relationship between sunrise and sunrise while he/she was working for the removal of uncleans by using girines around 07:0 on June 28, 2011, while he/she was working for the Plaintiff in Gwangju Mining District C, which was operated by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff paid medical care benefits to the Plaintiff on July 6, 201, and the Defendant paid temporary layoff benefits to the Plaintiff on July 19, 209,93,920 (on December 16, 2011) and medical care benefits (on January 16, 2011) and medical care benefits (on December 16, 2011).

B. Meanwhile, due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injuries in each of the instant fields, etc. on July 15, 201, in each of the instant fields, and received each of the instant accidents, and received the transplantation of each of the instant units at the Jeonnam University Hospital on July 15, 201, and the quantitative transplantation in the coordinates on the 16th of the same month, and the bareboat formation and mass transplantation on the 29th of the same month, and the same year.

8. 8. Symmetric surgery on August 29, 198, the removal of the content of the coordinates and the addition of a universal figure on November 29, 198, but it lost 76% labor ability due to the crymal disability assessment due to the crymal chilling of the depression and interference with the crymal crymosis, and the present ability has weak enough time to perform ordinary duties.

C. However, on January 18, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the approval of additional medical care and to collect unjust enrichment (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff is residing in the same residence as the business owner with his/her identity, the employment insurance was registered after the occurrence of an accident and the wage received from the workplace is not clear, thereby not constituting a worker as provided in Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion.