1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Labor Welfare Corporation is dismissed.

2. The defendant corrected at the plaintiff's trial.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Around 11:00 on September 15, 2014, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff’s workplace in the process of luminous raying into a dry air medicine, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, by suffering from 2-3 degrees pictures with the face value of the fire, etc. at 25% on the face of the fire, as the heat drums used in the dry process were removed into the air chemical substance, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant Labor Welfare Service.

B. On November 19, 2014, Defendant Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service issued a non-approval on the ground that the Intervenor cannot be deemed an employee of the Plaintiff. However, Defendant Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, as an intervenor’s objection, issued a disposition of approval of medical care ex officio on the Intervenor’s first claim for medical care benefits on January 21, 2015.

C. In the course of investigating the Intervenor’s industrial accident, the Defendant Labor Welfare Corporation confirmed that the Plaintiff omitted the employee’s remuneration when the Plaintiff reported the total amount of remuneration, and decided to impose industrial accident insurance premiums and employment insurance premiums, such as the purport of the claim.

As of February 25, 2015 and May 26, 2015, the Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation notified the Plaintiff of the payment of industrial accident insurance premiums, such as the purport of the claim, and employment insurance premiums, based on the determination of calculation and imposition of the industrial accident insurance premiums and employment insurance premiums of the aforementioned Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service.

(hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition" in combination with the above disposition of approval for medical care and the above disposition of approval for medical care. 【No dispute exists concerning the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion takes charge of oral thought work (the work to remove garbage on the surface by using chemical drugs before the luminous home), and luminous treatment, etc., and without basic pay, the plaintiff has received the amount calculated by deducting the business income tax according to the total work number from the plaintiff as the contract cost.