[2] The case holding that the disposition of imposing insurance premiums is lawful by classifying the business that leases the recovered materials after purchasing construction materials and renting them to another company for the maintenance and repair work such as concrete removal, oil luring and cutting, etc. as "any other manufacturing business" in the industrial accident compensation insurance premium table in the industrial accident compensation premium rate table

In determining whether a type of business of an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder falls under any category of business in accordance with Article 14(3) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Minister of Labor shall take into account not only the purpose of the policyholder’s business and place of business, but also the actual business and type of work of the worker (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10582, Jun. 27, 2003, etc.).

The court below acknowledged the facts based on the adopted evidence. If the plaintiff purchases construction materials and leases them to another company, and operates the business of leasing them again with the repair work such as concrete removal, oil luring and cutting, etc., it is reasonable to classify them as the "lease and business service business," which applies only to the business of leasing all equipment without a driver's license, such as the lease of construction sturgs, the lease of sturgs, the lease of sturging equipment, the lease of public machinery, the measurement, and the lease of control machinery, rather than classifying them as the "other manufacturing business" in the industrial accident compensation premium rate table. Thus, the court below held that the defendant's disposition of this case, which collected the shortage of the final premium, was unlawful.

However, such judgment of the court below is hard to accept in light of the above legal principles.

First of all, Article 14(3) and (4) of the Act, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act (Notice of the Ministry of Labor No. 2006-41) classify the industrial accident compensation rate table for each type of business under the provisions of Article 14(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act as follows: (i) repair of ships, rolling stock, repair and remodelling of aircraft, manufacture and repair of various machinery and parts, and dismantling of hulls, etc. in the item of manufacturing business as classified by the classification of manufacturing business; (ii) the business not classified into different types of manufacturing business but is classified as "other manufacturing business"; (iii) in the above industrial accident compensation rate table, the two-wheeled businesses and two-wheeled businesses include two-wheeled businesses and parts sales of two-wheeled businesses, and (iv) the plaintiff's automatic cleaning service business with repairs and removal of construction materials from the category of industrial accident, and thus, (iii) the plaintiff's automatic cleaning service business with removal of construction materials and removal of construction materials.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)