고용보험료 등 부과처분 및 보험급여액징수결정처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
Details of the disposition
On July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Ilsung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Japanese”), a company implementing a general industrial complex development project, under which the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Corporation for the treatment of by-products (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction”). On August 13, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to subcontract the said construction with Samsung-gun Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tong Chang-gun”), with the content that the said construction will be subcontracted to Samsung-gun.
At around 08:50 on September 12, 2014, A, a worker belonging to Tri-luminous, applied for medical care to the Defendant as a wound of knee in the 쇠 pole while transporting materials (hereinafter “the instant disaster”).
On December 29, 2014, the Defendant considered the Plaintiff as the original contractor under Article 9(1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter “Act”) with respect to the instant accident, and purchased the Plaintiff’s employment insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance ex officio, and issued a disposition imposing KRW 651,000 for employment insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance and KRW 1,629,60 for the Plaintiff.
On January 23, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff to collect an amount equivalent to 50% of the above industrial accident compensation insurance benefits pursuant to Article 26(1)1 of the Act, Article 34(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter referred to as “this case’s construction work”) from the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant accident occurred during the period in which the Plaintiff, a business owner, was negligent in reporting the establishment of the employment insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 11, and Eul.