1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. A design group B (hereinafter “B”) was subcontracted to the removal work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) from the mid-gu Busan metropolitan area C’s design alteration work for the design group (hereinafter “design Group”).

On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff, while performing removal works at the construction site of this case on June 12, 2015, sustained injuries, such as the left-hand small-gu prop-frame, etc. located from five floors to four floors.

On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits by asserting that he/she was injured while being employed as a daily worker in the instant construction site after being employed by the Defendant as a daily worker in the instant construction site, and that he/she sustained injury. On September 3, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to approve medical care benefits with respect to the Plaintiff, deeming that the Plaintiff was employed in the instant construction site and sustained injury while working as a worker in the instant construction site, and paid the Plaintiff the sum of medical care benefits.

After all, on May 11, 2016, the Defendant, as a result of the investigation into the fraudulent receipt of insurance benefits, deemed that the Plaintiff was the representative of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) that performed the instant construction by re-subcontracting from B, and received medical benefits by deceiving the Defendant, and accordingly, rendered a disposition to revoke the decision to approve the above medical benefits and to collect KRW 13,226,50,000, which is the total amount of the medical benefits paid to the Plaintiff, as unjust enrichment.

(hereinafter referred to as "each of the dispositions of this case"). 【The grounds for recognition of this case' are stated as evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that he was employed by the plaintiff, who was injured while working as a daily worker by being employed by the plaintiff in B to receive KRW 200,000 per day at the construction site of this case and serving as a daily worker at the site of this case. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that the plaintiff does not constitute a worker

B. Whether the Plaintiff is an employee at the construction site of this case.