1. On December 12, 2014, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s disposition of refusal to grant medical care.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff was engaged in driving service as a driver of a rolling stock operated by B from April 7, 2014 as a person who registered and operated an individual cargo transport service.

B. On November 8, 2014, in order to transport goods from D, which is the business partner of C, the Plaintiff: (a) suffered from the injury of the Defendant, such as “the instant injury that was caused by the ropes of wire ropes on the cargo vehicle, the left-hand fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, the right-hand fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, and the right-hand fluoral flu

C. On December 12, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the Plaintiff was not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, including the Plaintiff’s business registration and the Plaintiff’s automobile maintenance expenses, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a land owner, but in substance, the employer provided labor under the specific direction and supervision of the employer in a subordinate relationship with the employer. Therefore, it constitutes a worker under Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 2(1) subparag. 1 of the Labor Standards Act.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiff's application by deeming that the plaintiff is not a worker is unlawful.

B. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an oral entry contract with C representative, B, and subsequently was in charge of transporting C goods using its 4.5 tons of cargo vehicles.

C had approximately 4-5 cargo vehicles operated by C's employees for the transportation of goods, but C's vehicle was insufficient.