1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

A. B church (hereinafter “instant church”) is a church belonging to the C religious order, and has the third and fourth floors of the buildings located in Seoyang-gu, Seoyangyang-gu, Seoyang-gu.

B. From December 1982, the Plaintiff is engaged in the activities of the instant church as a pastor from around December 1982.

From March 1, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the qualification of the employment provided policyholder with the instant church as its workplace, and reported the income of KRW 300,000 per month and paid the health insurance premium calculated accordingly.

C. On August 25, 2017, the Defendant conducted a guidance and inspection on the instant church, and determined that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a full-time employee of the instant church. On November 21, 2017, the Defendant notified that “The Plaintiff, as a result of the workplace guidance and inspection, lost his/her eligibility as an employment provided policyholder and refund the total of KRW 69,760,000,000,000,000,000 from December 21, 2014 to November 2017.” The Defendant refunded the relevant amount to the Plaintiff, and refund KRW 9,497,870,00,000,000,000,000,0000

After that, the defendant calculated the plaintiff retroactively as an individually provided policyholder on November 23, 2017, and imposed a notice on the total of 21,003,800 won on the premium that the plaintiff should have paid as an individually provided policyholder from December 2014 to October 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the purport that “the Plaintiff was unlawful to retroactively lose the Plaintiff’s eligibility as an employment provided policyholder and impose KRW 21,003,800 for the settlement of accounts,” but was decided by the Defendant on April 26, 2018.

The plaintiff's disposition of this case is unlawful in the following point, as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, without any dispute (applicable to recognition), Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings. The plaintiff's disposition of this case is unlawful in the following point.