1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant disposition with the Defendant for the construction of a new personal house B (the construction period: October 22, 2015 to January 22, 2016; hereinafter “instant construction”) at the site of the construction of a new personal house B in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu (the construction period: October 22, 2015 to January 22, 2016; hereinafter “instant construction”) for the instant accident falling short of external seal construction (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On February 26, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to accept the said application on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 1, 7, Eul’s evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff constitutes a painting worker C employed by the owner of the instant construction site, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. As the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not provide for an employee entitled to receive insurance benefits under the same Act as well as for an employee under the Labor Standards Act, whether an employee entitled to insurance benefits falls under a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act shall be determined by whether the employee is actually a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act, and whether the employee constitutes a “worker” should be determined by whether the employee provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages at the business or workplace.

In light of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff did not prepare a labor contract in relation to the instant construction work and was paid the construction cost including personnel expenses, material expenses, etc. after completing his/her seal construction work. The fact that the owner of the instant construction site was the owner of the instant construction site who was unaware of the construction work, and the plaintiff did not confirm the completion thereof.