Court holds that lack of remuneration for work under a labor contract excludes social insurance coverage.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for social insurance coverage because the defendant failed to prove remuneration was paid for the alleged labor contract activities. The plaintiff argued that the relationship constituted employment, while the defendant contended the arrangement was a service contract without wage payment. The court ruled that without remuneration, the essential element of a labor contract is missing, thereby precluding eligibility for social insurance.