A. The plaintiff, as an agricultural company, runs a food manufacturing business that processes tin food (hereinafter referred to as the "business of this case") by constructing an agricultural product processing factory (hereinafter referred to as the "factory of this case") and an office (hereinafter referred to as the "office of this case") on the ground of the following city:

B. The Plaintiff entered into the business agreement with the Korea Rural Community Corporation and D private business operators, and established a vinyl house (hereinafter “the house of this case”) in the factory of this case and the place of office near the factory of this case, and also carries out an agricultural specialization project for cultivating the number of fruits outside the country, hereds, sons, Saturdays, Ulsan, and saves. The Plaintiff was awarded a contract for electrical construction for the plant of this case and office of this case, and the electric contract capacity of the plant of this case, office, and saves is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

D. On August 2, 2017, the Defendant imposed an administrative fine of KRW 6,00,000 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not submit a plan to prevent harm and danger (hereinafter referred to as “instant plan”) under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Safety Act”). On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the administrative fine of KRW 4,80,000 that was reduced within the period for voluntary payment, and filed an application for the return of the said administrative fine on October 10, 2018. E. The Defendant issued an order to return the administrative fine on November 7, 2017 to submit the instant plan (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

산업안전법 및 같은 법 시행령은 식료품 제조업으로서 전기 계약용량이 300W 이상인 사업의 사업주는 해당 제품생산 공정과 직접적으로 관련된 건설물 기계·기구 및 설비 등 일체를 설치할 때 유해·위험 방지 사항에 관한 계획서를 작성하여 제출하도록 하고 있다(제48조, 시행령 제33조의 2). 또한 제조업 등 유해·위험방지계획서 제출·심사 확인에 관한 고시(고용노동부 고시 제2013-39, 이하 '이 사건 고시'라 한다)는 전기계약용량의 경우 해당 공장에 대하여 한국전력공사(이하 '한전'이라 한다)와 직접 전력수급계약을 체결한 경우 그 전기 계약용량을 기준으로 하고 있다(제2조 제1항 제7호 가목), 이 사건 공장 및 사무실은 식료품 제조업과 직접적으로 관련된 건설물이나, 이 사건 하우스의 경우 농업특화사업이라는 별개의 업종에 사용되는 건설물이므로 이 사건 하우스의 전기 계약용량인 130W는 이 사건 계획서의 제출여부를 결정하는 전기 계약용량에 포함되어서는 안 되므로 원고의 전기 계약용량은 270W로 보아야 할 것임에도 피고는 원고의 전기 계약용량을 400㎾로 보아 원고에게 이 사건 계획서의 제출의무가 있다고 보고 이 사건 처분을 한바 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 48 of the Industrial Safety Act and Article 33-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Safety Act impose the duty to submit the instant plan when a business owner who runs a business with electricity contract capacity of at least 300 tons installs or transfers all of the construction products, etc. directly related to the manufacturing process in question, or alters the main structural parts thereof.

However, since the public notice of this case provides that when determining the capacity of electricity contract for the pertinent factory based on the electric power supply and demand contract for the pertinent factory, it is a matter of whether the duty to submit the plan of this case should be determined by adding up the capacity of electricity contract used for construction for business other than the category of business subject to submission of harm and prevention plan under the Industrial Safety Act to the capacity of electricity contract for the pertinent factory.In the public notice of this case, the term "construction, etc. directly related to the manufacturing process of the pertinent product" means raw material, processed, stored, stored, maintained, or repaired by-products (including sewage and wastewater) to conduct the business under Article 33-2 of the Decree, the term "construction, machinery, apparatus, and equipment necessary for the production, processing, storage, maintenance, and repair of the electric power plant" (Article 2 (1) 1) and the term "construction or supply and demand contract for raw materials, etc. used for the manufacturing business at least for the plaintiff's employees" as the requirement of the public notice of this case's construction and supply contract of this case.

In light of the above facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the house of this case is used for the cultivation and experience farm of crops, and the type of the crop of this case is irrelevant to the food produced by the plaintiff and cannot be deemed as a facility directly related to the manufacturing process of the food manufacturing industry. In light of the meaning of the language and text of Article 48 of the Fin Industry Safety Act and the relevant provisions, it is reasonable to deem that the electric capacity of the house of this case is not subject to consideration when determining whether to submit the plan of this case, regardless of the type of business where a business operator engaged in multiple types of businesses executes a single power supply contract with Korea, it is difficult to find the technical necessity or reasonable basis to submit a plan for prevention of harm and danger if the total capacity of the house of this case exceeds 300 W, regardless of the type of business.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Park Gyeong-ok

A person shall be appointed.