1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 14, 2016, at the site of the construction project located B’s detached house located in Chungcheong City (hereinafter “instant construction”), the Plaintiff felled on a concrete wall for the construction of a hole for the construction of a tent in the living room and was subject to a concrete cutting machine, and then was subject to a brupting accident. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical treatment with the Defendant upon the diagnosis of “all parts of the bridges, stoves, stoves, and stoves on the left side of the instant construction project, and the stoves, thropical stoves, stoves, stoves, stoves, stoves, stoves, stoves, hearts, stoves, and skins on the left side, stoves and skins on the left side, and stoves on the left side.”

B. On August 16, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant an application for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the owner for construction works and carried out construction works, and it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff as an employee under the Labor Standards Act” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is an employee who is paid a total of KRW 10 million per month during the two-month construction period from the owner of the building. However, the defendant's disposition of this case based on different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) Determination of whether a contract constitutes a worker under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act or the Labor Standards Act shall be made depending on whether a worker provided labor in a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace in substance rather than whether a contract is an employment contract. Whether a dependent relationship here exists shall be determined by the employer’s contents of duties and shall be subject to the rules of employment or service (which shall be subject to the rules