1. On September 5, 2012, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-approval for medical care granted to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 2, 2012, while the Plaintiff was employed as a daily worker at the site of remodeling of the C Center, which was directly operated by D, which was operated by D, which was operated by D, which was directly operated by D (hereinafter “instant construction”), the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “an accident involving the collapse of the interior wall of the said building,” and filed an application for medical care against the Defendant for the said injury and disease.

B. On September 5, 2012, the Defendant issued the instant disposition rejecting the application for medical care on the ground that “the instant construction works are less than KRW 20,000,000 of the total construction cost, and fall under the category of projects excluded from the application of industrial accident compensation insurance as prescribed by Article 6 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10305, May 20, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23728, Apr. 16, 2012).”

C. The Plaintiff filed a review with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee on the instant disposition, but all of which were dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is at least KRW 20,000,000, the Defendant erred by misapprehending that the total construction cost is less than KRW 20,000,000, based only on D’s statement.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. We examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the results of fact-finding on the net head of this court’s evidence, namely, the proviso to Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 2(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, are the construction work performed by a person other than a construction business operator, etc. under the Housing Act.