산재보험료 부과처분 취소
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
See the attached Table 1, in which the defendant against the plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows 2. The relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of the judgment of first instance) except for replacing the attachment Nos. 1 and 2 with the attachment No. 1 and 2 of this judgment. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8
2. The revised 4 3 3 to 4 8 e.g. “including the last 3 e.,” and the revised 4 e.g. “(1) the intervenor voluntarily performed delivery services without specific instructions or supervision from the Plaintiff on delivery services, and received fees from the restaurant, etc. that entrusted delivery according to the delivery performance, and is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act that provides the Plaintiff with labor in a subordinate relationship.
Therefore, the disposition of this case 1 and 2 based on the premise that the plaintiff was affected by the disaster of this case while performing his duties as an employee employed by the intervenor is unlawful.
2) The Intervenor constitutes “923 Food Delivery Board” among the subdivisions of the Korean Standard Classification Table of Occupations. Even if the Intervenor is deemed to fall under “922 door-to-door dispatch Board,” the Intervenor’s industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) is the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, since the Intervenor did not mainly perform the Plaintiff’s delivery services, exclusively
(1) Article 125(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26195, Apr. 14, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act”)
No person in special type of employment as prescribed in subparagraph 6 of Article 125 shall be the "person in special type of employment"
Therefore, the instant disposition 1 and 2 made on a different premise is unlawful.
The defendant first asserted that the intervenor is a person in a special type of employment in this court.