1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On July 13, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition to grant medical care benefits to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 13, 2012, at around 12:30, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as follows: “On the left side part and 2-5 water cutting off, the left part of the water unit, the water unit of the left side (3:4), the water unit of the water unit (2-5), the water unit of the left side of the water unit (2-5), the water unit of the left side of the water unit (2-5), the water unit of the left side of the water unit (2-5), the water unit of the left side of the water unit of the Plaintiff (the business owner is Plaintiff’s wife B; hereinafter “instant business site”).”

B. On June 22, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant.

On July 13, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant permission to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff shall not be deemed a worker,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff shall not be deemed a worker, since it shall not be deemed a worker,” as the husband and wife relations, working hours and working places, employment and dismissal of workers, purchase of materials and tools, business, and other related business activities.”

The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review and reexamination, but was dismissed on October 17, 2012 and January 7, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant workplace management business, namely, the employment, dismissal, determination of benefits, work instructions, etc. were all the business owners, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the duties of the head of the business management department.

The plaintiff was unable to prepare a commuting card because there are many cases of attendance at work as a business partner for the outside of business, etc., and the fact that the plaintiff was unable to receive a monthly wage after 2010 is due to the fact that the business circumstances are good and that he was paid a monthly wage at the latest than other workers, and the wage paid to the plaintiff was deducted from the wage paid to the plaintiff, including the industrial accident compensation insurance premium.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is the workplace of this case.