1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Details of the disposition and objection;

A. The Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the Plaintiff’s wife B (hereinafter “B”) employed the Plaintiff as full-time employee B and operated the E-real estate intermediary office located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) as the employee insured from January 1, 2006 to maintain its qualification as the employee insured under the National Health Insurance Act.

In addition, since January 1, 2013, the Plaintiff’s so-called “C” (hereinafter referred to as “C”) was employed as a full-time employee at the instant workplace and maintained the eligibility of the employee insured under the National Health Insurance Act.

B. On May 13, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff, the representative of the instant workplace, stating that “B and C are all part-time workers under Article 6(2)4 of the National Health Insurance Act and Article 9 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act, and excluded from the employment provided policyholder,” to the effect that “B and C are retroactively lost the eligibility as the employment provided policyholder as of January 1, 2006, and that C would be subject to a disposition to retroactively lose the eligibility as the employment provided policyholder as of January 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant prior notice”).

Plaintiff

On May 20, 2013, B and C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) filed an objection against the instant advance notice, and requested the procedures for the hearing to the Defendant.

C. On February 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that “B and C are all part-time workers under Article 6(2)4 of the National Health Insurance Act and Article 9 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act, and thus excluded from the employment provided policyholders; (b) the Plaintiff and B’s eligibility as the employment provided policyholder is retroactively lost as of February 1, 2010; and (c) the Plaintiff and B, the same household, as the Plaintiff and B, lose the total regional insurance premiums from February 1, 201 to October 130, 20760; and (d) November 201 to October 201.