1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “D” in Young-si, Young-si, Young-si (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). However, on March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff reported the establishment of an industrial accident compensation insurance relationship with the Defendant under Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”), Articles 5 and 11 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter “Insurance Premium Collection Act”).

B. The Intervenor was diagnosed on January 9, 2013 as a field of back-to-face rupture to the left part of the instant restaurant in charge of kitchen services on December 2012, and was diagnosed as a field of back-to-face rupture to the left part of the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant disease”) on August 22, 2013 while performing his/her duties while cleaning a water tank around December 2012.

C. On September 10, 2013, the Intervenor filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits for industrial accident compensation insurance for the instant disease. On December 23, 2013, the Intervenor received insurance benefits amounting to KRW 14,406,450, which was recognized as occupational accident by the Defendant.

On August 12, 2011, the Defendant rendered a decision to collect KRW 7,360,300,00 from the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant disease constitutes a disaster that occurred during the period when the business owner neglected to report the establishment of the insurance relationship (hereinafter “instant disposition”) under Article 26(1)1 of the Insurance Premium Collection Act and Article 34(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the ground that the instant disease constitutes a disaster during which the business owner neglected to report the establishment of the insurance relationship (hereinafter

E. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on August 26, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 9, 10, and Eul No. 7, 8.