The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On October 2, 2018, B, while performing construction works for the extension of the rest room of a building D adjacent to D located in Seogpo-si C (owner E; hereinafter “instant construction”) on the site of construction works for the extension of the rest room of a building D (owner E; hereinafter “the instant construction”) in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, 201, he was faced with fingers in the corner of the board.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B filed a claim for medical care benefits, temporary layoff benefits, etc. with the Defendant on November 5, 2018.

On January 2, 2019, the Defendant investigated the instant accident.

As a result of the above investigation, the Defendant: “B is the Plaintiff’s employee; the Plaintiff becomes the insured under the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter “Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act”). The Plaintiff commenced the F Repair Work after being awarded a contract from the Seopo Police Station prior to the instant construction work on August 6, 2018; and the said construction work is deemed as the instant construction work and business; thus, the formation date of the insurance relationship is August 6, 2018; and the instant accident constitutes a disaster that occurred during the period in which the Plaintiff, as the business owner, was negligent in reporting the establishment of the insurance relationship pursuant to Article 26(1)1 of the Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act.” On March 27, 2019, the instant disposition was imposed on KRW 23,000, which is part of the industrial accident insurance benefits paid to B pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is on the premise that the Plaintiff employed B as the business owner (B is the Plaintiff’s employee). The instant construction is merely a direct construction of the owner, and the Plaintiff did not directly participate in the construction, nor did the Plaintiff employed B as the business owner after being awarded a contract for the instant construction from E.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful because there is no ground for the disposition.

4. Determination

(a) B.