The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who operates the "Deputy Director, Deputy Director," in Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as the "Deputy Director, Deputy Director, etc. of this case").

The Plaintiff did not report the establishment of an insurance relationship under Article 11 or the business owner subject to Article 5 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act").

(The plaintiff reported the establishment of employment insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance to the defendant on November 1, 2018). (B)

From June 2013, Non-party E (FF; hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was employed by the Head of the Three Deputy Director of the instant case and worked as a three-dimensional.

(The first time of entry is around January 2003, but repeated several times of entry and retirement, and continued to work after re-entry on June 2013).

On December 20, 2017, the Deceased continued to be moved to a house while working at the Deputy Director of the Rural Affairs of this case on December 20, 2017, but was discovered after death at around 08:40 on the following day.

As a result of the autopsy on the deceased, the private person was “non-exploital brain resistant explosion.”

The mother-child(G) of the deceased claimed the payment of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses on the ground that there is a proximate causal relation between the deceased’s work and the death.

E. On February 8, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that KRW 42,565,270 equivalent to 50% of the industrial accident compensation insurance benefits should be collected based on Article 26(1)1 of the Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff caused a disaster during the period of neglect in reporting the establishment of the insurance relationship.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute; Gap evidence 1 to 3; Eul evidence 1 to 3; Eul evidence 1 to 12 (including provisional number); the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s duties are simple in the duties of the deceased, and the duties are left off by the nature of the duties.