1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 16, 2010, the Plaintiff completed medical treatment due to an occupational accident, such as “slovas slovas slovas, slovas slovas slovas slovas slovas slovas sl, and slovas lovas sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl sl

B. The Defendant paid temporary disability compensation benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any wage subject to calculating the average wage at the time of receiving the additional medical care pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act by making the minimum amount of temporary disability compensation benefits per day pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and on January 4, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a request for the correction of the average wage and the difference in the amount of the insurance benefits to the effect that the Plaintiff, based on the wage

C. On January 22, 2018, the Defendant issued a corrective non-approval of average wages and a disposition of the difference in the amount of insurance benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Nonparty Company formally, but the Plaintiff was working for up to 08:20 according to the rules of employment of the Nonparty Company, and received work instructions from the company in the course of performing the work of installing regional cable TV broadcasting and Internet telephone, etc. using the company’s equipment in the area allocated by the Nonparty Company. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was wearing identification cards and uniforms designated by the Nonparty Company and received the duty allowance at the weekend, the Plaintiff was in a subordinate relationship with the Nonparty Company in which the Plaintiff actually provided labor exclusively to the Nonparty Company and received the fee in return.