The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Point 1.

According to Articles 4 and 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the business subject to this Act refers to the business and place of business subject to the Labor Standards Act, and the business owner of such business will naturally become the insured of the industrial accident compensation insurance, and the plaintiff company that becomes the insured under this Act has the obligation to report and pay the estimated premium under Article 23 of the same Act and the obligation to report and pay the final premium under Article 25 of the same Act. Thus, the above insurance premium shall be determined on the unit of the plaintiff company that is the insured and collected from the plaintiff company that is the obligor.

Therefore, the unit of insurance under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be deemed to be the business owner who becomes the insured, and since the business of the plaintiff company shall not be construed to be the unit of each site of the business belonging to the business owner of one person, even if the business of the plaintiff company has been separately calculated and paid the premium from each site of the business because the mining industry located in Young-gun in Gangwon-do, the mining industry center located in the Gyeongbuk-gun, the Seoul Young-gu, Seoul, which is located in Seoul, the above site of the above business is in charge of part of the insurance of the plaintiff company which is the insured under the above Act, and the total amount of the insurance premium to be paid by the plaintiff company which is the insured of one person shall be determined as the unit of the plaintiff company, and if the insurance premium paid at each site of the above business falls short of it, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff company is still liable to pay the remaining part of the insurance policy to the plaintiff who is the insured. The ground for appeal that the plaintiff company erred in the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with the opinion that it is unlawful as to the above 4th of the insurance company's.

Point 2.

In light of the provisions of Articles 19, 23, and 25 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the obligation to pay insurance premiums should be without the insured nor arise from the date on which the insurance relationship is established. Thus, in light of the provisions of Articles 4, 6, and 7 of the above Act, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the occurrence of specific liability for payment of insurance premiums, since the plaintiff operated the business subject to compulsory subscription at the time of January 1, 1964, the illegal enforcement date, and at the same time, the insurance relationship is established at the time of the illegal enforcement date, and the plaintiff has become the insured from the time of the occurrence of specific liability for payment of insurance premiums. Therefore, it is reasonable that the court below stated that there is no submission of the report under Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, or there is no notification under Article 5 of the same Decree, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles on the occurrence of specific liability for payment of insurance premiums.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court