[산업재해보험료부과처분무효확인청구사건][고집1970특,149]
Units of purchase of insurance under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.
The unit of insurance coverage under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be the owner who becomes the insured, and it shall not be interpreted that the unit of insurance can be the owner of one's own business.
Articles 4, 6, 7, 23, and 25 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act
Korea Resources Mining Corporation
The head of Seoul Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance office
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant's attorney confirms that the disposition of imposition of KRW 4,593,436 and KRW 3,623,765 against the plaintiff as of February 21, 1969 is null and void.
The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
As of February 21, 1969, the Defendant imposed industrial accident compensation insurance fees on the Plaintiff as claimed against the employee of the Plaintiff Company’s head office, and the Plaintiff Company’s business is a mining business, which is located in the dong mining center located in Young-gun in Gangwon-do, the achievement mining center located in the Gyeongbuk-do, and the Seoul Production Center located in Yeongdeungpo-gu in Seoul, and the fact that these mining centers are paying insurance premiums by purchasing industrial accident insurance. There is no dispute between the parties.
The Plaintiff Company’s head office does not correspond to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which was enforced at the time of the imposition of this case as an independent place of business, and the industrial accident insurance business place under the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even if it is assumed that the occurrence of rights and duties pursuant to the law is limited to the general rights and duties identical with the duty of the citizens to pay taxes, and specific liability for payment of premiums or the right for payment of insurance premiums arises when the imposition of taxes is made, and specific legal relations pursuant to the declaration (Article 4) and notification (Article 5 of the above Decree) and notification (Article 5 of the above Decree). Since there was no report and notification on the Plaintiff Company’s head office, there was no specific legal relationship with the Plaintiff Company’s head office. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff Company’s head office did not establish specific rights and duties as well as specific rights and duties with respect to the Plaintiff Company’s head office in 1967 and 1968 of the same Act, it is reasonable for the Plaintiff Company to separately pay the total amount of insurance premiums to the Plaintiff Company and its head office under its jurisdiction.
According to the provisions of Article 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 6 of the same Act, Article 7 of the same Act, Article 23 of the same Act, Article 25 of the same Act, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, effective at the time of the period subject to the imposition of this case, the industrial accident insurance policyholder shall be the business owner of the business and shall be at least 100,000 full-time workers (not less than 13,000 workers per annum) or 25,00 or more per annum (not less than 50,000 workers per annum in 1968), and the business owner of the mining and manufacturing industry shall naturally be the industrial accident insurance policyholder, and if the insurance relationship is established at the date of becoming the insured, the insurance company shall report to the Minister of Health and Welfare within 30 days of the first day of the insurance year, and if the amount of the final premium is not determined within 15,000 or more of the total premium paid to all the workers employed by the end of each insurance year, it shall be reported or reported within 15 days of the final premium.
Therefore, the Plaintiff Company, as an industrial accident insurance policyholder, has a duty to calculate and pay the insurance premium in accordance with the procedure set forth in the above provision on the basis of the total amount of wages paid to all its employees. Therefore, the employees of the Plaintiff Company’s head office also have the duty to pay the insurance premium to the said employees as well as the employees employed by the Plaintiff Company as in each of the mining establishments
In other words, the plaintiff company is obligated to pay insurance premiums to all workers including its employees, including its head office, as an ex officio policyholder of industrial accident insurance. (The obligation to pay insurance premiums is derived from the fact that the above provisions are insured under the above provisions, and it cannot be viewed that the ex officio policyholder under Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act submitted a report and received notification under Article 5 of the same Decree, and the time when the company becomes an ex officio insured under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as of January 1, 1964, the time when the company becomes an ex officio insured under Article 5 of the same Decree is the date when the company becomes an ex officio insured under this Act).
Therefore, in collecting industrial accident insurance premiums against the plaintiff company, the disposition of this case to collect insurance premiums against the employees of the head office of the plaintiff company omitted is legitimate. Thus, since the disposition of this case is null and void automatically, the plaintiff's claim to seek such confirmation is just and dismissed, and the costs of this case are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.
Judges Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Judge)