According to the judgment of the court below, the court below calculated the difference between the estimated premium and the insurance premium under Article 4, Article 7 (1), Article 19, Article 21 (1), Article 26, and Article 4, Article 5, Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and determined that the notice of the formation of the insurance relation to the insured under the provisions of Article 6 of the same Act is appropriate to be the object of appeal litigation for the original purpose of removing the risks or disadvantages arising from the unfair application of the premium rates, because it is merely the fact that the insurance relation was not established by the provisions of Article 4, Article 6, Article 7 (1), Article 20, Article 26, and the fact that the insurance relation was not established by the provisions of Article 6 of the same Act or the provisions of Article 6 of the same Act and the fact that it is not established by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor within the first day of the above insurance year and the fact that the insurance relation should be collected under the provisions of Article 23 of the same Act should be reported or determined in writing.

With respect to this case, where the court below appears to have imposed estimated premium on the plaintiff by the defendant, it is unlawful to determine that the notification of the formation of the insurance relation itself is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, and to enter the primary claim, and to examine and determine the case, so the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)