1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Around 15:20 on March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff, as a B employee, was at the center of the C Housing Construction Site, and was at the end of the C Housing Construction Site, and was at the end of the C Housing Construction Site, and was at the end falling under the lower end, applied for the approval of medical care to the Defendant around that time.

On July 10, 2015, the Defendant, on behalf of the Plaintiff, decided not to grant medical care on the ground that construction works executed by a person, other than a constructor, do not constitute an exception to industrial accident compensation insurance, and constitute an industrial accident compensation insurance business.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, A’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On July 14, 2014, E, F, and G, a relative relationship with the Plaintiff’s ordering person D, completed the registration of transfer of each ownership-ownership co-ownership share on the grounds of sale and purchase with respect to C.

Around February 16, 2015, the said land was divided into C311 square meters, H 405 square meters, I 410 square meters, and J 163 square meters. On June 2, 2015, C due to each co-owned property partition, G, H, and J, and F, respectively.

The ordering person D started with construction on the land divided in C at the same time, and constructed three buildings with 65 square meters at each ground, a light steel structure structure, a light steel structure, and a single-story house of 65 square meters.

On June 17, 2015, each of the above houses was completed in the name of G, E, and F on June 29, 2015 after obtaining approval for use.

D, while performing the total construction for the construction of each of the above housing units, only framework construction works were entered into with B in a separate manner.

Since each of the above houses was newly constructed at the same time, B workers including the Plaintiff did not start the structural construction of the other house after the completion of the structural construction of one house, but proceed with each of the above structural construction at the same time.

The place where the plaintiff suffered from a disaster was also the place where the materials for the construction of each house were arranged in a lump sum.

Since each of the above housing construction sites is a construction site in substance and in substance, three houses are required.