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 September 2, 2014, around 13:40 on September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) caused an accident of collision with a passenger car running in the same lane while driving D truck (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); (b) by negligence, the center line was obstructed; and (c) the passenger car driving in the same lane was shocked and continued to run in the same lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on March 2, 2015, after receiving a diagnosis of an injury or disease in the upper left part, such as the laverization of the lavers of the left part, the upper part of the lavers of the lavers, the upper part of the lavers of the lavers of the lavers, the upper part of the lavers of the left part, the upper part of the lavers of the lavers of the lavers of the lavers, the upper part of the

C. On June 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition on the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff’s business was confirmed to have been operated under an entrustment contract with the transport business entity, and thus, it does not constitute a worker.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff filed a request for examination against the defendant, but was dismissed on September 15, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 14 each statement (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into an employment contract with E, F, and E and F, and entered into an entrustment management contract with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”). The actual party to the instant entrustment management contract is E, F, not the Plaintiff, and therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a worker who was employed by E and F and provided labor. The instant accident that occurred during the Plaintiff’s work constitutes occupational accident, and thus, the instant disposition of the instant case on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) relation.