1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on April 3, 2017 as bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 4, 2016, around 11:40, the Plaintiff’s spouse B (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the head in the bridge roof, which was coming from the next building due to the strong wind, while constructing a panel at the site of the building of the Young-gun C detached Housing (hereinafter “instant building”) in Yeongdeungpo-do (the contractor, contractor, E, and hereinafter “instant construction”).

In May 24, 2016, the Deceased was sent to F Hospital, but died due to acute cardiopulmonary suspension around 15:00 on May 24, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant disaster”). (b)

The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased died due to occupational accidents, and claimed the Defendant to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses.

However, based on the proviso of Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 2(1)3(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Defendant decided on June 22, 2016, on the ground that “E, the contractor of the instant construction, did not hold a construction business license, and the total floor area of the instant building indicated in the construction contract written by D and E is not more than 100 square meters, and thus, the instant construction does not constitute a business subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.”

C. Since then, the Plaintiff again filed a claim for the payment of bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision on the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses on April 3, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition” does not dispute the instant disposition on April 3, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The entries in Gap’s 1 through 6, 10 through 15, 22, 24, 35, Eul’s 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D and E exceeded 100 square meters of the total floor area of the instant building that was agreed prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, and the actual total floor area of the instant building where E was under construction at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident exceeds 100 square meters.

Therefore, the construction of this case is not less than 100 square meters.