1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. From 1999, the Defendant has been operating a place of business which produces automation machinery parts, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant place of business”) with the trade name “D” in Silung-si, Silung-si.

On October 12, 2013, the Defendant moved the instant place of business to another place. On the condition that 300,000 won per day was paid to 30,000 won of the instant place of business, the Defendant, including the Plaintiff, etc., who became aware of as a result of the introduction of chip E, had two persons, including the Plaintiff, etc.,

On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff, who had been engaged in the collection of scrap iron, etc. at the instant workplace, was faced with injury, such as an accident falling into the floor from the second floor of the instant workplace to the first floor (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) and suffered from the right-hand laverization of laver, etc.

On the other hand, in relation to the instant accident, the Defendant was prosecuted on the charge of violating the Labor Standards Act on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay medical care expenses and compensation for suspension of work as prescribed in the Labor Standards Act (U.S. District Court Decision 2015Da727), but on September 16, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to the acquittal judgment (hereinafter “relevant criminal judgment”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the Defendant’s employee, and the first instance judgment was maintained in the appellate court (U.S. District Court Decision 2015No5732), and the judgment was finalized on April 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for temporary employment with the Defendant to perform the duty of collecting scrap metal at the instant workplace after receiving daily allowances from the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was subject to the instant accident while working for a certain period at the instant workplace designated by the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff is an employee who provides the defendant with subordinate labor relations for the purpose of wage, etc., and the defendant is an employer and the plaintiff suffers from the accident of this case.