산재보험 사업종류변경신청 반려처분 취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons why the court accepted the judgment of the court of first instance for this case are as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the contents asserted in the court of first instance to the corresponding part, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff Company is a processing company that takes a finished product such as oars and valves and takes a metal into the human body, the mother body, etc. through the contact. As such, the Plaintiff Company is a business entity that provides the franchising of the franchis as a final product (services). As such, it is unreasonable to regard the franchis and valves as a final product in determining the type of business. 2) The products that are the product subject to the Plaintiff Company’s work (the subject of special use) include franchis, hostings, and tubes, etc. in addition to the franchis and valves.
Among them, the reason that enjoying and valves, which are some products, are included in the content of machine manufacturing business(223), is that the business of the plaintiff company is classified as machine manufacturing business(223).
B. Determination 1) According to the industrial accident insurance premium rate and the table of business types by business type in 2015 (Article 2014-58 of the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s notification), the term “manufacturing various machinery or parts thereof” includes not only the case of “manufacturing” but also the case of “processing” and “repair.” The Defendant’s first argument is that the processing company cannot constitute “manufacturing various machinery or parts thereof” as it does not manufacture various machinery or parts thereof, but also it is obvious that such assertion is inconsistent with the above notification of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and it is erroneous from that premise.