산재보험사업종류변경신청반려처분 취소
1. Of the instant lawsuits, the case concerns year 2012, 2013.
1. The circumstances leading up to the disposition are companies established on August 1, 1982 with the main business purpose of the manufacture and sale business of various pipes, pipes, e.g., and industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “industrial accident insurance”) that applied the type of business to “the manufacturing business of piping parts (21813)” and produced high-tension strawing for plant use (the term “sprinking” in connection with the pipe pipes when connecting the machinery such as oil filterings, sprinking machines, heat exchange machines, etc. constituting the plant with the pipe pipes, or when connecting the pipe pipes with the pipe pipes. Accordingly, the sprinking is a total term when connecting the pipe pipes.
B. On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff changed the type of industrial accident insurance business at the Plaintiff’s workplace to “the manufacturing business of general industrial machinery and equipment (22308)” from January 1, 2011 to “the manufacturing business of general industrial machinery and equipment (2308)” and applied for an alteration of the industrial accident insurance relationship with the purport that the refund of overpaid or erroneously paid insurance premiums from January 201 to the filing date (hereinafter “instant application”). However, on April 21, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change to “the industrial accident insurance premium rate and the type of business applicable to the Plaintiff for each type of business in 2015 (No. 2014-58 of the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s notification)” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premium Manufacturing Business or Metal Processing Business (21813).
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition.” Accordingly, on July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to the effect that the instant disposition did not have clear details of the disposition regarding the instant application, and that the Defendant sought detailed disposition thereon. On July 9, 2015, the Defendant returned the instant application to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s business type constituted “the manufacturing business of piping parts (21813)” from July 2002 to July 2014, the business type applied to the Plaintiff constitutes “the manufacturing business of piping parts (21813).”