1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2015, at the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was performing the construction of the second floor warehouse and office extension work at the business establishment located in Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu C (hereinafter “instant construction”). The same year is under the process of performing the construction work at the request of the Defendant.

5. 31. 31. Corresponding from steel plates to the upper end of the steel plates so that they can walk on and walk on them. Corresponding down approximately five meters in height while being pushed down in the future.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the brush of the upper part No. 2-3, which was caused by the instant accident.

C. On the other hand, on August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits to the Intervenor joining the Defendant on the ground that the instant accident constituted occupational accidents under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. However, the Intervenor joining the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant medical care on the ground that the Plaintiff directly employed two workers and directly paid the wages of the employed workers, and submitted a tax invoice at the Defendant’s request regarding the processing of construction costs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant reserved the specific direction and supervision right, and ordered the Plaintiff to supply materials and equipment only to the part of the construction to the Plaintiff, thereby concluding a labor contract. Therefore, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a substantial relationship between the employee and the employer.

B. Although the construction site of this case is likely to fall at least two meters in height and depth, the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with protective outfits, such as safety belts, etc. necessary for the work, and the work is to be installed at the place where workers fall or are at risk of fall.