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;

A. On September 9, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on entrustment of business affairs (hereinafter “instant contract on entrustment of business affairs”) with E running the cosmetic headquarters B and 2nd floor C (hereinafter “instant beauty room”) and started work as a Haguener from that time.

Upon entering into the instant entrustment contract, the Plaintiff: (a) received 30% incentive when the monthly actual sales amount to KRW 5 million; and (b) received 1% incentive per one million won increase per 1 million won increase; and (c) entered into a profit-sharing agreement with the Plaintiff to deduct expenses for beauty products and food expenses used by the Plaintiff from the sales.

(hereinafter “instant revenue sharing agreement”). B.

Around 14:00 on September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant, subject to the diagnosis of “the first unit of the first unit of the second unit of the second unit of the second unit of the second unit of the second unit of the second unit of the second unit of the second unit of the first unit of the first unit of the first unit of the first unit of the second unit of the second unit of the

C. On December 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act on the basis of the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to receive a profit distribution according to a certain ratio compared to the sales amount pursuant to the instant entrustment contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6 through 9, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the cosmetic proprietor and provided labor to the business owner in a subordinate relationship, and constitutes a worker under Article 5 Subparag. 2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act.

Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff does not constitute a worker should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Determination 1.