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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss “a direct operation of “G by employing and directly employing and directly employing and directly using “G” under Section 6-7 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment on the following arguments emphasized again by the court of first instance; (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a business owner under the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance is unlawful, is the case where the Plaintiff is a specialized construction project that expands the existing first floor building into the second floor and is not directly operated by the Plaintiff, other than the construction project, as the main manufacturer. In light of the fact that it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to directly operate the iron structure construction and the sales center construction that is the main construction while awarding a contract to F, such as concrete typology, waste materials disposal, toilet construction, etc., which is an incidental construction, and that it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to directly operate the steel structure construction and sales center construction that is the main construction.

However, in full view of the records of the confirmation document prepared by G (No. 6) and the fact that the Plaintiff purchased or leased materials and equipment necessary for the steel structure construction and the board construction and the Plaintiff provided to G, and the remainder of the money excluding some of the money paid to G, excluding the money paid by the Plaintiff to G, is the remuneration for work performed by G and work executor, and not deemed to have been paid as the payment for the completion of work, it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff to be the business owner of the said construction.

The steel structure construction and the board construction are specialized construction works that require considerable technical skills, and the plaintiff has no professional knowledge or technology about construction works.