[1] Whether the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act of the Korea Port Steel Industry Management Corporation applies (affirmative)

[2] Articles 57, 62(1), and 63(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and Articles 60 and 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[3] The industrial accident compensation insurance premium rate applied to the Port Steel Industry Management Corporation

[1] On May 27, 1980, the Port Steel Industry Management Corporation is the Corporation which has obtained permission for establishment under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, and manages the port steel industrial complex efficiently upon entrustment from the competent Do governor, while entering into an entrustment contract with the port market and has been conducting road cleaning business within the Corporation. From 1994, it establishes and operates a gas station within the Corporation as a profit-making business. The business of the Corporation is a non-profit real estate leasing business, and this constitutes not a "member organization" but a real estate business, non-residential building leasing business (70121) under the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, Article 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 3 (1) 2 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table. Therefore, it is subject to the same Act.

[2] The purpose of Articles 57, 62(1), 63(1), and 61 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is to ensure the equitable burden of industrial accident insurance premiums by adopting the so-called premium rate system by classification of premium rates according to the risk rate of accidents and the degree of responsibility corresponding thereto, because industrial accident insurance assumes the responsibility for occupational accident compensation for workers of an employer based on the principle of strict liability, and the burden of insurance premiums is fully borne by the employer. In addition, the calculation method is calculated by multiplying the total amount of wages by the premium rate determined based on the disaster rate of the business occurred in a labor relationship between the employer and workers. If the Minister of Labor determines the premium rate, he/she shall, without delay, specify the type and content of the business subject to the application, announce it by specifying one premium rate for one business or workplace, but if two or more business subject to the notification are conducted within the same workplace, he/she seems to have applied to the calculation and payment of the insurance premium rate by two or more workers respectively.

[3] In light of the ratio of the number of managers, gas station operators, and cleaning employees among the employees of the Port Steel Industry Management Corporation, the main business of the Corporation is road cleaning business. This constitutes 902 sanitary and similar service among the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rate table published by the Ministry of Labor and 90201 garbage collection and disposal business.

[1] Article 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [2] Articles 57, 62(1) and 63(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Articles 60 and 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act / [3] Articles 57, 62(1) and 63(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Articles 60 and 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and Article 94-52 of the Ministry of Labor’s announcement

Port Steel Industry Management Corporation (Attorney Choi Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 11,020,250 and additional dues for the industrial accident insurance premium of 1992 against the Plaintiff on December 4, 1995, KRW 12,711,91,910 and additional dues for the industrial accident insurance premium of 1993, KRW 1,277,190, KRW 141,350 and additional dues for the industrial accident insurance premium of 194, KRW 1,014,130, KRW 130, KRW 7,512,110 for the industrial accident insurance premium of 195.

1. Details of the instant disposition

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7-5 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 3-1 through 4, 3-4, 4-2, and 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, and the whole purport of the testimony and pleading of the witness tear.

A. On May 27, 1980, the Plaintiff was a corporation which obtained permission for incorporation under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, and was entrusted by the competent Do Governor for efficient management of the port steel industrial complex, while conducting road cleaning business within the Corporation upon entering into an entrustment contract with the port market. From 1994, the Plaintiff established and operated a gas station within the Corporation as a profit-making business. However, the Plaintiff did not pay industrial accident compensation insurance fees without reporting the establishment of industrial accident compensation insurance under Article 12 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4641 of Dec. 27, 1993) and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. On December 4, 1995, the defendant Corporation found that the plaintiff omitted a report on the establishment of the industrial accident compensation insurance relationship, and imposed the final premium and additional dues for the industrial accident insurance from 192 to 1994 as stated in the purport of the claim by applying the type of the business to the plaintiff as the "sanitary and Similar Service Business", and imposed the final premium for the year 195.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In light of the contents of Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act and Article 5 subparag. 1 through 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff is a public corporation that obtained permission for establishment under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, and thus, constitutes an entity that is not subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act because it constitutes an “member organization among other public society and private service businesses” under Article 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 3(1)2

B. Even if the Plaintiff’s domestic industry is subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Plaintiff’s domestic industry is a public interest special corporation established mainly for the purpose of the management of the port steel industrial complex, and the Plaintiff’s construction and operation of a gas station within the Corporation by concluding an entrustment contract with the port industry and receiving subsidies from the port industry. Since from May 194, 194, the Plaintiff’s business type constitutes “any other business” in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Policy Table, and thus, it is erroneous for the Plaintiff’s taxation disposition to apply the premium rate by deeming that it falls under “sanitary and similar service business” in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Policy Table.

C. In addition, even if the management services of the Plaintiff’s Port Steel Corporation and the road cleaning services entrusted by the port market have been separated and independently carried out without relevance, it is unfair to apply the industrial accident insurance premium separately in the application of the industrial accident insurance premium, as well as to apply the insurance premium rate higher than the inherent services of the Corporation. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Whether the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act applies

Article 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "this Act shall apply to all businesses or workplaces: Provided, That this shall not apply to any business prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the risk rate, scale, place of business, etc. of the business, and Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "any business prescribed by Presidential Decree refers to member organizations among financial and insurance businesses, international and other foreign institutions, and other public, social and private service businesses" and Article 3 (2) of the same Act provides that "the scope of the business referred to in each subparagraph of paragraph (1) shall be governed by the Korean Standard Industrial Classification". Meanwhile, according to the above evidence No. 4, it can be recognized that the business of the plaintiff Corporation is a non-profit real estate rental business, and it is clear that the business falls under real estate business, non-residential building rental business (701.21) under the Korean Standard Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

(b) Appropriateness of the application of sanitary and similar service business

(1) Issues

In addition to the above real estate business after the establishment of the Corporation, the plaintiff was engaged in road cleaning business within the Korea Port Steel Corporation after entering into an entrustment contract with the Korea Port Steel Corporation. From 1994, the fact that the plaintiff has established and operated a gas station within the Corporation as its own profit-making business is as seen earlier. Therefore, since the insurance premium rate in one business place is different from the insurance premium rate in two or more businesses, it is problematic whether to apply any insurance premium rate to the plaintiff Corporation.

(2) Relevant provisions

Article 57 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be classified and determined by type of business under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor, in consideration of the amount required for insurance benefits, such as pensions, etc. under this Act, expenses required for accident prevention and welfare promotion of workers suffering from disasters, and other circumstances. Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, "Minister of Labor shall, when he has determined the insurance premium rate under Article 63 of the Act, notify it publicly without delay, specifying the type and details of the business to which the insurance premium rate is applied, and Article 62 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be determined by specifying the type and contents of the business to which the insurance premium rate is applied, and Article 63 (1) of the same Act of the same Act, as the main business (hereinafter referred to as "the main business to which the total amount of wages is more than two workers and the main business (hereinafter referred to as "the main business").

(3) The purport of the provision

Industrial accident insurance is subject to the principle of strict liability, on the other hand, the burden of insurance premiums is entirely borne by the employer. Thus, the so-called industrial accident insurance premium rate is to promote the equitable burden of industrial accident insurance by adopting the so-called rate system by classification of insurance premium rates according to the risk rate of accidents and the degree of responsibility corresponding thereto. In addition, the calculation method shall be calculated by multiplying the total amount of wages to the insurance premium rate determined based on the disaster rate of the business generated in the labor relationship between the employer and the worker. When the Minister of Labor determines the insurance premium rate, he/she shall, without delay, specify the type and contents of the business subject to the application, and publicly announce it. However, if there are two or more businesses subject to the above notification within the same workplace, he/she can separately apply the insurance premium rate to the business (main business) with a large number of workers among the businesses in order to avoid the circulation of calculating and paying the insurance premium according to the insurance premium rate belonging to the business.

(4) The plaintiff's main business

If Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8-1 through 9, Eul evidence 9-1 through 12, Eul evidence 10-1 through 11-3, Eul evidence 1-1 through 12, Eul evidence 12-1 through 12-3, testimony of the witness and oral argument are gathered, the plaintiff Corporation had approximately 40 employees in 192, about 16 and 24 cleaning workers in 193, and about 39 employees in 193, about 16 and 23 cleaning workers in 194, which were about 50 workers in 194, which were about 50 workers in 194, but which was about 12 management workers in 192, about 15 cleaning workers in 195, and about 195 of cleaning workers in 197, which were about 195, and about 195 of cleaning workers in 197.

(c) Markets:

Therefore, on December 4, 1995, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant Corporation recognized the kind of business of the plaintiff from 1992 to 1995, the extinctive prescription of which has not expired pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as "sanitary and similar service business" and imposed the insurance premium according to the applicable premium rate is erroneous.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is unfair because the disposition of this case is unlawful, and it is dismissed and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-soo(Presiding Judge)