1. The Defendant’s disposition of collecting industrial accident compensation insurance benefits amounting to KRW 36,007,820 against the Plaintiff on August 22, 2013 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a constructor who performs waterproofing and collecting water in the trade name of “C”.

From August 4, 2012 to January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant construction”) proceeded with the E inspection roof replacement and repair work located in Dong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On October 16, 2012, around 16:00, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) suffered bodily injury, such as “in each of the instant construction works involving the ceiling repair at the site of the instant construction works, each of the instant construction works, with the wind, i.e., e., each of the instant materials, and the wind to the right eye.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disaster”). C.

On November 20, 2012, an intervenor filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant regarding the instant accident.

Accordingly, the defendant recognized the accident of this case as an occupational accident and approved the medical care, and paid the insurance benefits to the intervenor.

On August 22, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 36,007,820, an amount equivalent to 50/100 of the insurance benefits determined to be paid to the intervenors pursuant to Article 26(1)1 of the Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Insurance Premium Collection Act”) on the ground that the instant accident constitutes an accident that occurred during the period in which the Plaintiff did not report the purchase of industrial accident insurance.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【No dispute exists with the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 2-7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. From February 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff engaged in the business of improving the Intervenor’s house repair and roof, while engaging in the business of operating the Plaintiff’s technical affairs, the Plaintiff shared the technical affairs and shared profits in half and half.

Therefore, the plaintiff and the intervenor, who are the disaster of this case, are not the relationship between the employer and the worker, but the joint business owner of the same business relationship.