[산업재해보상보험료부과처분취소][하집1990(1),654]
The case holding that the business of manufacturing a revolving plate and transporting it to the construction site and assembling showes, etc. and operating the revolving machines and electrical construction, etc. constitutes an industrial accident compensation insurance premium rate construction business or general construction work from among the construction business of the table of business type for applying industrial accident compensation insurance premium rates.
If the work of the Plaintiff company that operates the water pollution preventive facilities business under the Revolving Sales Promotion Act is much more than the number of workers or total wages employed at the construction site for the installation of a revolving, the type of the Plaintiff company’s business is two construction expenses for the construction business and the manufacturing business. The Plaintiff company’s business registration of the Plaintiff company's total construction expenses for the construction business, transported it to the site of the wastewater treatment plant facilities construction work, and then assemble back spons, showp, electrical construction, etc. to the wheel at the construction site, such as the completed house and water tank and combines spons, etc. to its operation, and supplement the number of regular workers of the wheel manufacturing factory as daily workers every time it is necessary for the Plaintiff company’s 20 employees and three production workers, and the number of workers or total wages employed at the construction site for the installation of a revolving board is much more than the number of workers or total wages of the wheel manufacturing business than the total construction expenses for the construction business and the construction business among the total construction expenses for the Plaintiff company can be regarded as the construction business of Article 58 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business.
Article 21 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 47 of the same Act, Article 5 of the Construction Business Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-
Han Engineering Co., Ltd.
Head of Daegu Regional Labor Agency
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 222,420 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 5,8587,450 on July 19, 1988, and KRW 222,420 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 2,224,270 on the additional premium in 1987, and KRW 585,740 on the additional premium in 1988, and KRW 2,197,30 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 4,792,450 on the additional premium in 198.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Where the plaintiff pays only 2,706,460 won as estimated premium in 1987, and 2,214,380 won as estimated premium in 1988, with respect to the industrial accident compensation insurance premium to be paid by the plaintiff corporation which is a workplace subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the defendant shall make a public notice of the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rate (it shall be published by the Ministry of Labor in 1987) pursuant to Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the public notice of the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rate in 1987 shall be announced by the Ministry of Labor in 86-44, and the public notice to be applied in 1988 shall be 30,70,000 won as total insurance premium rate in 20,000 won as total insurance premium rate in 20,000 won as total insurance premium rate in 30,57,000 won as total insurance premium rate in 30,570,197,04,087, aggregate insurance premium rate in kind of construction business
2. The plaintiff's attorney asserts that, since the plaintiff's main business is the manufacturing, sale, facilities, trial operation, etc. of the power source plates, which are sewage, wastewater purification facilities, the type of business operated by the plaintiff is the manufacturing business of plastic processed products, it is illegal for the defendant to impose the insurance premium of this case on the premise that it falls under the type of construction business (1987) or the general construction business (1988).
살피건대, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제5호증의 2(일반폐기물처리시설 설계시공업등록증), 3(방지시설등록증), 4(공장등록증), 5(사업자등록증), 갑 제6호증의 1, 갑 제8호증의 1(각 계약서), 갑 제6호증의 2, 3, 갑 제7호증의 3, 갑 제8호증의 2, 갑 제9호증(각 세금계산서), 갑 제7호증의 1(주문서), 갑 제7호증의 2(주문수락서), 갑 제10호증(재무제표확인원), 갑 제11호증(광고문), 갑 제12호증(공사도금계약서), 을 제2호증의 2(방지시설공사실적), 을 제3호증의 1(대차대조표),2(손익계산서), 3(공사원가보고서), 을 제4호증의 1(조사복명서), 2(결산보고서), 을 제5호증(업무협조의뢰공문), 을 제6호증의 1(업무협조), 2(계약서), 3(견적서), 을 제7, 8호증(1987년 상용 임금대장 및 일용노무비대장), 을 제9, 10(1988년 상용임금대장 및 일용노무비 임금대장), 원본의 존재 및 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제13호증(업무협조의뢰건사본), 갑 제14호증(업무협조사본)의 각 기재와 증인 김성식의 증언 및 당원의 현장검증결과와 원고대표자 한영교본인신문결과(다만 위 증인 김성식의 증언과 원고대표자의 본인신문결과 중 되에서 믿지 않는 부분은 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, ① 원고회사의 등기부상에는 설립등기시인 1984.10.13. 상하수도설비공사업 및 위와 관련사업 일체를 그 목적으로 삼았다가 1986.5.26. 그 목적을 환경오염방지시설업, 오수정화시설설계시공업, 건설업, 상하수도설비공사업, 기술지도 및 용역업, 위 각 사업과 관련있는 일체의 사업으로 변경한 사실, ② 원고회사의 사업자등록증에는 업태를 건설업 및 제조업으로, 그 종목으로는 상하수도설비, 환경오염방지, 오수정화처리장, 공해방지기, 금형 및 관련제품으로 되어 있고, 한편 원고는 대구환경지청에 1987.6.30. 폐기물관리법 제17조 제3항 및 같은법시행규칙 제36조 제3항 의 규정에 의하여 오수정화시설설계 시공업의 등록을 하고 같은해 9.1. 환경보전법 제47조 및 같은법시행규칙 제54조 제2항 에 의하여 수질오염방지시설업 등록을 하고, 1988.11.30.에 이르러서는 대구직할시 동구청에 업종:제조, 생산품명:공해방지기기, 수처리기기, 회전원판, 금형 및 관련제품, 소재지:대구 동구 동호동 103의9를 내용으로 하는 공장등록을 한 사실, 다른 한편 원고회사 선전을 위한 광고문엔 그 업종으로 환경오염방지시설업, 오수정화시설설계시공업, 상하수도설비공사업 및 회전원판 전문생산업 등 4종으로 기재되어 있는 사실, ③ 원고회사가 경영하는 사업내용에 관하여 보면 원고회사는 환경보전법상 방지시설의 하나인 수질오염방지시설(이외에도 환경보전법엔 대기오염방지시설, 소음방지시설, 진동방지시설 등이 있다)중 생물학적 처리시설(환경보전법엔 수질오염방지시설에는 다시 물리적 처리시설, 화학적 처리시설 및 생물학적 처리시설 등 3가지가 있다고 규정하고 있다)로서의 회전원판접촉법에 의한 방지시설업을 경영하고 있는바, 회전원판접촉법에 의한 수질오염방지시설업의 사업내용은 이를 시공하려면 우선 발주자가 설치하여 달라는 하수 및 폐수처리장에 토공공사, 집수조등 구조물공사를 한 다음 기계장치공사, 전기공사 등과 동시 또는 그 후에 회전원판을 설치하거나 이에 직결되는 부대공사 등을 하여야 하는데 원고회사에서는 발주자와 사이에 하수 및 폐수처리장을 설치하기 위한 도급공사계약을 체결하여 그 중 회전원판의 제조, 설치부분만의 공사만을 하고 그 밖의 토공공사, 구조물공사 등은 다른 업체에 하도급주어 시행하기도 하고 또는 이와 같은 하수 및 폐수처리장설치공사 전체를 도급받은 도급자로부터 다시 회전원판의 설치부분만을 하도급받아 시공하거나 아니면 회전원판의 설치부분만을 분리하여 도급받아 시공하여온 사실, 그런데 원고회사는 1986년 이전까지는 발주자로부터 하수 및 폐수처리장설치공사를 전부 도급받아 회전원판설치관련공사만 직접 시공하고 나머지 부분공사는 다른 업체에 하도급주는 방식으로 하여 왔으나 1987년 이후부터는 주로 회전원판관련부분공사만을 분리하여 도급받아 시공하고 있는 사실, ④ 원고회사가 행하는 작업형태는 우선 도급받은 공사의 규모에 따라 필요한 량만큼의 회전원판을 프라스틱을 재료로 하여 제조하는데 회전원판제조공장의 상시근로자는 원고회사의 전 종업원 20여명 중 생산계장 1명과 생산직 근로자 3명뿐이고 필요시마다 일용근로자를 고용하여 회전원판을 제조하여 왔으며, 제조한 회전원판은 이를 폐수처리장 시설공사현장으로 운반한 다음 완성된 집수조 등 공사현장에서 회전원판에 지지대, 샤프트 등을 조립한 후 그 회전원판이 가동할 수 있도록 그 부대공사인 기계장치나 전기공사 등을 하는 사실, 원고회사에서는 때때로 회전원판을 제조하여 판매하는 경우도 있으나 그 때에도 회전원판을 판매만 하는
In addition, the fact that they are transported to the wastewater treatment place and installed and run the test, and the ratio of the cost of revolving power source production to the whole construction costs of the Plaintiff company to the cost of the pre-sale construction works of the Plaintiff company is about 80 percent, but the actual condition of workers' use is much more than the number of workers or total wages employed in the field of revolving power source manufacturing, etc., and there are still no objections against some of the above witness Kim Sung-sik's testimony and some results of the Plaintiff's representative's examination.
Therefore, based on the above facts, Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "if the above-mentioned manufacturing business is carried out at least two kinds of manufacturing business within the same business establishment, the premium rates applicable to the larger number of workers and the total construction cost (hereinafter referred to as "main manufacturing business") shall apply to the above 8-type manufacturing business and the above-type manufacturing business for the same type of manufacturing business as the 9-type manufacturing business and the above-type manufacturing business shall be included in the 9-type manufacturing business. On the other hand, Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the General Rules of the 86-4 and the above-type manufacturing business shall apply to the above 9-type manufacturing business (this subparagraph 2 shall be included in the 9-type manufacturing business as well as the 9-type manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business's new manufacturing business'.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)