beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff’s spouse B entered into a transport contract for the instant vehicle with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) who was awarded a contract for the transportation of goods, etc. from the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), and entered into a transport contract with C on February 2012 between C and C, and the Plaintiff performed the transportation of the instant vehicle after jointly and severally guaranteed the said transport contract.
B. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as follows: (a) around 09:30 on November 1, 201, as an accident in which C had engaged in the product transport business under the transportation contract to transport milk finished products, etc. shipped from the Daegu factory, etc.; (b) at a point 3.6 km (in human direction) of the Southern-dong Highway, Nam-gu, Incheon; (c) caused damage to a window with smaller conditions open to the river; (d) the frame of the bridge of the bridged body; and (e) the frame of the bridged body of the bridge under the detailed part of the missing part, following the diagnosis by the Plaintiff at a point 3.6 km (in human direction) of the Southern-dong Highway Highway, Nam-gu, Incheon.
C. On October 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits on the ground that the instant injury or disease constituted occupational accidents. However, on April 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff provided labor in a non-subsidiary relationship with the non-subsidiary relationship, and received wages in return, is not an employee who actually engages in his/her own business under his/her responsibility, but is difficult to be recognized as an employee under the Labor Standards Act that is the subject of industrial accident insurance benefits.”
Therefore, the plaintiff filed a request for examination with the defendant, but it was dismissed by the defendant.