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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person that runs a paint wholesale business under the trade name “C,” and the Defendant is a juristic person that performs insurance business under the Employment Insurance Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter “Insurance Premium Collection Act”).

B. On December 29, 2004, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report on the establishment of the employment insurance and industrial accident insurance relationship for regular employees D, E, employment insurance and industrial accident insurance premium report, and on January 4, 2005, the Defendant rendered a disposition of approval of the employment insurance and industrial accident insurance relationship retroactively to the Plaintiff on January 1, 2002.

C. On May 29, 2005, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the acquisition of insured status in the employment insurance premium insurance premium insurance for F and G, the Plaintiff’s children, and on July 1, 2007, reported to the Defendant the acquisition of insured status in the employment insurance premium insurance policy for H, the Plaintiff’s wife (hereinafter “instant insured”).

After April 1, 2008, the Plaintiff paid the employment insurance premium, the industrial accident insurance premium, each additional charge, and each late payment charge, etc. up to the period of 2007 for the insured.

On the other hand, around January 201, H filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Ministry of Employment and Labor of the Ministry of Employment and Labor on the ground that the Plaintiff’s workplace was retired on July 17, 2010 at the Plaintiff’s workplace. However, on January 5, 2011, the head of the Korea Employment and Labor Agency of the Central District Employment and Labor Agency revoked the insured status of the instant insured on the ground that the instant insured was not an insured person as a relative living together with the representative of the workplace, and the Defendant also revoked the insured status of the industrial accident insurance for the instant insured at that time.

E. Accordingly, on January 201, the Plaintiff rendered the instant case to the Defendant’s Gyeyang branch office.