산재보험료부과처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition of a part of the judgment of the first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this context is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. In addition, the phrase “by using slot machines” in the front of the “salesplace” in Section 11 of the fourth part.
The first line of the 5th line “Return..... was returned” to the Plaintiff’s workplace, and the second line of the table “disaster date” to “the Plaintiff’s workplace,” and the second line of the table, “the date of accident” to “the date of March 5, 2007,” “ October 17, 2007,” and “ March 25, 2014.”
Part 1 under the 5th Schedule " has reached....... the plaintiff has become aware of all information on the source of sales in connection with the issuance, etc. of the tax invoice." The plaintiff added "a fact that there has been no dispute" and "B No. 1 through 3, and 10" to the 2nd column under the 5th Schedule.
After the last 15th of the 7th page, “On the other hand, in the event two or more different businesses are carried out together, a project with a large portion of workers, total amount of remuneration, sales, etc. shall be determined by making a report on the authorization of a project (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16169, Apr. 29, 2010).”
Since the 10th page does not exist, the following shall be added to “the cases of 2012 and 2013”:
The following is added to the "insufficient case of 2014", and the "after the 10th last day of the 10th century, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff has sold to an unspecified customer as a matter of course only on the ground that the plaintiff was fully aware of all the information of the other party to the transaction," and the plaintiff has cut off with large machinery in the factory alone, as alleged by the defendant or the intervenor, may cause a disaster with convenience store or small-scale iron dealer, etc.