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

The key issue of this case is ① The defendant dispatched the plaintiff to the non-party 1 corporation (the non-party 1 corporation in the judgment of the Supreme Court), so it is illegal to take measures to retroactively correct the type of business without any administrative guidance to the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff's business type related to the non-party 1 corporation is considered a comprehensive management business including building, etc., and the defendant's business type should be applied separately from the defendant's insurance relationship (the plaintiff's assertion) where two or more different businesses are conducted at one place of business pursuant to Article 14 (3) of the Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (the Insurance Premium Collection Act, and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) and Article 14 of the same Act (the Insurance Premium Collection Act).

According to Article 14(3) of the Insurance Premium Collection Act and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the first instance court concurrently provides guard services and cleaning services according to the insurance premium rate schedule for each type of business as the Ministry of Labor, and accordingly, the type of business for the non-party 1 corporation is included in the scope of the comprehensive management business of buildings, etc. (90101). Therefore, since all kinds of business for the non-party 1 corporation who dispatch security service workers and cleaning service workers constitute the comprehensive management business of buildings, etc. conducted at one place of business, it is not reasonable to apply Article 14(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Premium Collection Act which applies to the case where two different types of business are conducted at one place of business, and the industrial accident compensation insurance is applied to the plaintiff's business for each place of business, and it is reasonable to apply the plaintiff's industrial accident compensation insurance to the defendant's business's business's business separate from those for each type of business, and it is not reasonable to apply the defendant's duty to correct the type of business to the non-party 1 corporation's business.

2. Quotation and conclusion of the judgment of the first instance;

Therefore, the reason why the court uses this case is the same as the column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.

Judges Doksung (Presiding Judge) Kim Sung-ho