산업재해보상보험급여액 징수처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Acknowledgement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the portions to be written by the court below or to be determined additionally under paragraph (2). As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
Article 17 of the former Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (amended by Act No. 16268, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter referred to as the "former Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act") of No. 16 and 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be construed as the "former Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 16268, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter referred to as the "former Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act"), No. 3, 6, 14, 8, 10, 19 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance" of the former Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and Article 16 of the former Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 16268, Jan. 15, 2019).
Part 6 of the Decision of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as the "Decision") 10 to 7 shall be applied in the following manner: "It is difficult to believe that it is difficult to do so".
2. According to the purport of Article 9(1) of the former Insurance Premium Collection Act, the Plaintiff asserts that the business or place of business to which the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act applies should be determined by adding only the construction cost of the pertinent sewage supplier and its subordinate suppliers if the business is a sewage supplier. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s determination should be based only on the construction cost that the Plaintiff received.
However, the fact that the Plaintiff is the original recipient who received a contract for the instant 1 and 2 construction from C is identical to that recognized earlier, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.
Article 9 (1) of the former Insurance Premium Collection Act is several times.