1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is that the plaintiff has the right to apply for the change of the subscriber to industrial accident compensation insurance even in the appellate court, i.e., the plaintiff's assertion that "the plaintiff has the right to apply for the change of the subscriber to industrial accident compensation insurance" is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for supplement of the grounds for the following determination, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with

【Supplementary Judgment】 Along with the fourth nine parallels and ten parallels, the following reasons for the judgment should be added. “The defendant specified his/her business owner in the course of examining the application for medical care for workers suffering from disasters, but it is merely an internal judgment that takes place in the middle stage of determining whether to approve the medical care, and such judgment itself does not cause direct change in the business owner’s specific rights and obligations” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du47426, Jul. 14, 2016). In addition, following the fifth parallels of the judgment of “it is reasonable to see” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du47426, Jul. 14, 2016).

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.