1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2017. 5. 23. 동해시 B에 있는 4층 건물(이하 ‘이 사건 건물’이라 한다)에서 전등 스위치를 교체하기 위해 전등에 연결되는 선을 기존에 설치되어 있던 배관에 삽입하던 중 사다리가 넘어지는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)로 ‘열린 두개(頭蓋)내 상처가 없는 경막외 출혈, 경추의 염좌 및 긴장, 두개골 및 안면골의 상세불명 부분의 골절, 폐쇄성, 우측 측두골 골절, 우측 외상성 돌발성 난청, 우측 전정기능 저하’(이하 ‘이 사건 상병’이라 한다) 진단을 받았다.

B. On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of medical care with the Defendant on the ground that the instant injury or disease was an occupational accident.

On September 6, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to refuse medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s work to replace the location of the class prior to the instant accident (hereinafter “instant replacement work”) was conducted by the Plaintiff under a direct contract from D, the ordering person, and that the Plaintiff does not constitute a worker under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Defendant, but on February 12, 2018, the Defendant dismissed the decision on February 12, 2018 on the ground that “it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was in the position of an employee under the Labor Standards Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act providing labor in subordinate relationship with the purpose of wage at the time of

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant replacement work is included in the electrical construction contracted by E from D, and the instant injury and disease occurred during the Plaintiff’s work as a worker.