[산업재해보상보험료부과처분취소][집24(1)행,124;공1976.6.1.(537) 9133]
Whether the pertinent statute applicable to the procedure for objection to the imposition (collection) of insurance premiums and whether a preliminary claim is filed at the time of filing the preliminary claim for the discharge period and the preliminary claim for the imposition of insurance premiums, where a dispute is brought against the main claim and the preliminary claim for the imposition of insurance premiums.
The method of appeal against the imposition (collection) of insurance benefits at the time of the disposition of the imposition of the insurance premium (192.2.11) and the concept thereof are different shall be in accordance with the general application of the lawsuit, and in the event that the disposition of the imposition of the insurance premium as the main claim is revoked in the sense of invalidity, the preliminary claim is unlawful, and the imposition exceeding a certain amount is made by reducing the amount of the insurance premium as the preliminary claim for the imposition of the insurance premium, and each claim is filed for revocation, it is reasonable to see that the preliminary claim has been duly filed as long as the main claim has been duly filed within the period of release.
Attorney Park Jong-Gyeong, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
The head of Seoul Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance office
Seoul High Court Decision 75Gu25 delivered on November 25, 1975
The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney
The court below's determination that this case's insurance benefits were to be subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 19th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 16th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 29th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 16th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 16th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 20,625th industrial accident compensation insurance contract's 196th industrial accident.
In this regard, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim such as this case is also disputing the defendant's disposition of imposing industrial accident compensation insurance premium against the plaintiff, so the method of appeal against it should be interpreted to be in accordance with the general source law.
Therefore, after examining whether the plaintiff's conjunctive claim satisfies the requirements for filing an action under the Administrative Litigation Act (Evidence A No. 2-1, No. 3, No. 4). According to the records, the plaintiff was subject to the disposition of February 11, 1969 and filed a suit with the Administrator of the Labor Agency on February 13, 1969, and notified the decision of dismissal by the Administrator of the Labor Agency on May 6, 1969, the plaintiff filed the suit (the plaintiff's claim). Thus, it is obvious that the date of receipt of the notice of dismissal was determined as May 1, 1969 (the first instance court's determination as the date of dispatch as stated in the evidence No. 4). The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is legitimate for filing an action within the period of time as stated in Article 5 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Meanwhile, the court below's determination as to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim as to the cancellation of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim as stated in the ground for revocation of the plaintiff's claim and its cancellation as stated otherwise.
Therefore, the court below rejected the preliminary claim on the ground that the preliminary claim was filed with the intent of covering the period of release, and thus, dismissed it on the ground that it erred in interpreting the Act on the Business of Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance and Examination, thereby misunderstanding the legal application of the Act, and misunderstanding the legal principles on the period of release under the Administrative Litigation Act, thereby failing to examine the merits of the preliminary claim, it is reasonable to discuss this point.
Therefore, the original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)