1. The Defendant’s non-approval disposition for medical care rendered to the Plaintiff on February 14, 2018 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.” in each trade name are omitted, and their trade names are specified) are companies which are engaged in business by being entrusted by D (hereinafter “D”) with the business of cable TV, Internet business and installation.

B. On August 9, 2017, in order to install cable TVs of D customers, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed as “the frame of the stokes, the right stokes,” and (b) applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant at the workplace to which B was affiliated, after the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the stokes between the stokes and the right stokes.

C. On February 14, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the request for examination on May 16, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff provided labor in subordinate relationship with B, which aims at wages in substance, and thus constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

Nevertheless, the defendant made a wrong judgment that the plaintiff does not constitute a worker.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that an employee entitled to receive insurance benefits under this Act refers to an employee under the Labor Standards Act, except for special cases concerning a person in special type of employment as prescribed in Article 125 (the main sentence of Article 5 Subparag. 2). Therefore, determination is based on whether an employee entitled to insurance benefits falls under “worker under the Labor Standards Act” in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du2201, Feb. 24, 199).