거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff purchased the industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “industrial accident insurance”) from July 11, 2002, and applied the type of business to the manufacturing industry of prior products (21812), and produced an exclusive V (hereinafter “instant product”).
B. On January 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the change of the type of industrial accident insurance business to “automobile parts manufacturing business (22708). However, on February 4, 2014, the Defendant rejected the said application on the grounds that the instant product falls under the “ship goods manufacturing business” in the business type list of the industrial accident insurance premium rates and the business types (Notice No. 2013-56 of the Ministry of Employment and Labor Notice No. 2013-56, hereinafter referred to as the “Notification of the instant case”) in the business type list of the business type of the “ship goods manufacturing business” (hereinafter referred to as the “Notification of the Ministry of Employment and Labor”), which is the internal standard, is excluded from V.
hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"
(C) Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, the Plaintiff was dismissed on August 26, 2014. [In the event that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 5, 9, Eul’s 1 through 3, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant product is essential for the manufacture of automobiles, and is entirely supplied to the automobile manufacturer, and the instant notification type of the instant product is examples of “business manufacturing automobile parts” (22708) and “business manufacturing automobile parts, etc., and other business manufacturing automobile parts” (22708). Thus, the Plaintiff’s industrial accident insurance type can be deemed as “automobile parts manufacturing business (22708)” in the instant notification type of business.
The instant disposition based on the different premise is unlawful, even though it is on the other premise.
(b) relation.