1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff subscribed to respective employment insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “employment insurance”) with respect to “construction work business, building work business, etc.” on December 12, 2012.

In 2013-2016, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant (attached Form 1) the total amount of remuneration and the total amount of remuneration for construction as stated in the “report’s “total amount of remuneration” in [Attachment Table 1] to the Defendant, and reported and paid the employment-industrial premium calculated based thereon.

B. Around August 2016, the Defendant confirmed the difference between the Plaintiff’s wage and salary income payment for the Plaintiff’s employee who reported to the National Tax Service in 2013 and 2014 and the Plaintiff’s wage and salary payment for the Plaintiff’s employee who reported to the Defendant in order to pay the employment and industrial accident insurance premiums in 2013 and 2014, and selected the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s “business operator in need of settlement due to the difference between the employment and industrial accident insurance premium already paid and the employment and industrial accident insurance premium to be actually paid.”

On August 3, 2016 and August 22, 2016, the Defendant directed the Plaintiff to submit data, such as financial statements confirmation sources (including financial status marks, income statements, cost specifications, etc.), the head of each account, the list of tax invoices by customer, the list of tax invoices by customer, and the cost specifications by field.

On October 2016, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant data, such as the Financial Report Confirmation Board, the Director of the Account, and the cost statement by field.

C. After reviewing the documents submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant recognized the “amount paid as earned income of the Plaintiff’s employee who reported to the National Tax Service in 2013 and 2014” as the Plaintiff’s lawful payment of earned income, and recognized the difference between the “amount paid as earned income of the Plaintiff’s employee who reported to the Defendant in 2013 and 2014” and the “amount paid as earned income of the Plaintiff’s employee who reported to the Defendant in 2013 and 2014.”