2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On April 26, 2007, the Plaintiff is a company for which the registration of incorporation has been completed after being divided from the Nez Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nez”) that was engaged in a game business, Internet business, investment business, etc.

B. Pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Insurance Premium Collection Act”) and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, business has been subject to the special exception of the insurance premium rate (hereinafter “individual performance rate”) of industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “industrial accident insurance premium rate”) prior to the said division. The said division led to a decrease of the number of workers at ordinary times to not more than nine, and the said division was not subject to the application of an individual performance rate. The Plaintiff established under the said division was not subject to the application of an individual performance rate since three years have not passed since the establishment of the insurance relationship for industrial accident insurance.

C. On November 12, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the application of an individual performance rate applicable to the industrial accident insurance premium from 2007 to 2010 (hereinafter “instant application”) (hereinafter “instant application”) with the purport that the Plaintiff filed an application for the correction of the difference between the industrial accident insurance premium rate and the industrial accident insurance premium rate based on the general insurance premium rate calculated from 2007 to 2010, as the Plaintiff filed an application for the correction with the purport that the industrial accident insurance premium of the company established by the division was divided and comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of the business in accordance with the division plan (hereinafter “instant division plan”). (The Plaintiff filed an application for correction from 2007 to 2010 to 2010 to the general insurance premium rate calculated according to the general insurance premium rate as follows).

D. On December 29, 2010, the Defendant rejected the instant application on the grounds that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of the business upon examining the instant division plan (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 5 evidence, Eul 1-1, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In addition to the Plaintiff’s comprehensive succession to the rights and duties of business, including the industrial accident insurance relationship, due to division, the Plaintiff’s business before division and the Plaintiff’s main business are the same as the type of business subject to the insurance premium rate and the actual status of its work. As such, the Defendant shall apply the individual performance rate where the business prior to division was applied in calculating the industrial accident insurance premium from 2007 to 2010. However, the Defendant applied the general insurance premium rate in calculating the Plaintiff’s industrial accident insurance premium for the above period. The instant disposition made on the premise that the industrial accident insurance premium rate is legitimate.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 6, 1997, business was a company which had an industrial accident insurance relationship, and engaged in game business, Internet business, and investment business. On April 26, 2007, the company was divided into a company (hereinafter “instant division”) and established the Plaintiff, a company operating the Internet business, and the Nez Internet (hereinafter “Nez Internet”), a company operating the investment business (hereinafter “Nez Social”). After the division of this case, Nez continued to exist as a holding company holding the total number of shares issued by the Nez Internet and Nezbes.

2) The main contents of the instant division plan (Evidence A 2) are as follows.

1. Table 1. Division: 1. The company is to divide its own business categories into 0. 5 billion won and to divide its own business categories into 0. 1. 5 billion won and its own business categories; 1. 2. The company is to divide its own business categories into 0. 5 billion won and its own business categories; 3. 4. The company is to divide its own business categories into 0. 5 billion won and its own business categories into 0. 4. The company shall be to divide its own business categories into 0. 5 billion won and its own business categories; 1. 4. The company shall be to divide its own business categories into 0. 5 billion won and its own business categories into 0. 4. The company shall be to divide its own business categories into 0. 5 billion won and its own business categories into 70. The company shall be to divide its own business categories into 0. 5 billion won and its own shares shall be divided into 1. 5 billion won and the company shall be to be incorporated into 10.

3) According to the instant report on the completion of division (Evidence A) of the business prior to the instant division, the total amount of capital of the business prior to the instant division is KRW 100,931,00,000, the total amount of capital of KRW 60,957,000,000, the total amount of capital of the Plaintiff following the instant division is KRW 32,176,000,000, and the total amount of capital of the Plaintiff after the instant division is KRW 19,32,00,000.

4) Before the instant division, the business type was a business service at the time of the establishment of the industrial accident insurance relationship, but the type of business was changed from the information processing and other computer operation-related business on January 1, 2003. At the time of the instant division, the type of business was changed from the division to the business service, and the type of business was changed from January 1, 201 to the business consulting service business. The Plaintiff’s business type is the same as the type of business immediately before the instant division due to the information processing and other computer operation related business.

5) Prior to the instant division, Neow engaged in the operation of online game portal “(Internet address omitted) service” as a major business. The sales revenue of the network-paid items was most part of the total sales revenue. However, the Plaintiff, established in the instant division, also carries out the operation of online game portal “net (Internet Address Address omitted) service” as a major business, and paid-paid item sales revenue accounts for most of the total sales revenue.

6) The total wage in the year 2006, before the instant division, was KRW 16,573,862,087, and the total wage in the year 2007 (from January 1, 2007 to April 25, 2007) was KRW 5,983,885,264. The Plaintiff’s total wage in the year 2007 (from May 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007) was KRW 7,456,296,60,600, the total wage in the year 2008 was KRW 19,056,401,876, and the total wage in the year 2009 was KRW 24,731,726,622, and the total wage in the year 2010.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2 through 4, 6 through 9, Eul 2-1, Eul 3-2, Eul 4-2, Eul 6-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Articles 13 through 16 of the Insurance Premium Collection Act, Articles 13, 15, 16, 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the industrial accident insurance premium rate under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be set according to the ratio of the total industrial accident insurance benefits to the total remuneration for the past three years as of June 30 of each year (the Insurance Premium Collection Act before the amendment by Act No. 8812 of December 27, 2007 shall be September 30 of the same year) separately for each type of business, taking into account the amount required for industrial accident insurance benefits, such as pensions under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, accident prevention, and expenses needed to promote the welfare of workers, and if three years have not passed since the establishment of the industrial accident insurance premium rate for each type of business, the industrial accident insurance premium rate for each type of business, the industrial accident insurance premium rate of which is 0 percent or less of the industrial accident insurance premium rate for each type of business as determined by Ordinance of 30 months or less.

2) As seen in the above facts, it is recognized that the Plaintiff received all active, small property, other rights and duties and property-value facts that the Plaintiff determined in the instant division plan as belonging to the Plaintiff, and that the business type and main business of the Plaintiff are identical before the instant division.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff was transferred with only property, rights, and property-value facts of the game business sector among the four business sector prior to the division of this case (Article 530-10 of the Commercial Act provides that the company established by division or merger shall succeed to the rights and obligations of the company to be divided under the conditions as prescribed by the agreement of the division or agreement), and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of the business before the division of this case, such as maintaining the identity of the human organization and physical facilities. As such, before the division of this case, the Plaintiff was subject to the individual business performance rate of the above business before the division of this case by comprehensively taking account of the total business accident rate of the above business type, such as the game business, Internet business, and investment business, and the total business performance rate of the company prior to the division of this case, and the total business performance rate of the company cannot be deemed to have been applied to the Plaintiff, even if the new business operation rate of the company prior to the division of this case was not the same as the total business performance rate of the company before the division of this case.

3) Therefore, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s application for the instant disposition is lawful in calculating the industrial accident insurance premium from 2007 to 2010, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit (On the other hand, the instant application is a claim for correction of the industrial accident insurance premium from 2007 to 2010, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is a claim for revocation of the Defendant’s rejection of the claim for correction of the industrial accident insurance premium from 2007 to 2010. As for the industrial accident insurance premium paid by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant application, the period for filing the claim for correction has already lapsed (see Article 19(7) of the Insurance Premium Collection Act and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). The Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the claim for correction of the industrial accident insurance premium in 207 and 208 is without merit in this respect).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Cho Il-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-san Kim Tae