[1] Whether the public notice of the Ministry of Labor, which provides the labor ratio that serves as the basis for calculating insurance premiums upon delegation by the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, uses the concept of "total construction amount" without the mother law, and whether the failure to distinguish the original contractor and the subcontractor exceeds the bounds of delegation by the mother law (negative)

[2] The case holding that in calculating the insurance premium under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it is lawful to calculate the total amount of wages by applying the ratio of the total construction cost to the total construction cost on the ground that it is easy to grasp the cost of direct labor by the enterpriser who is the original contractor, but it is difficult to compute the cost of external labor, and it is difficult to compute the cost of external

[1] Article 62(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 5881 of Feb. 8, 199) used the concept of "total construction cost" that is not prescribed by the mother Act by setting the ratio of labor to total construction cost according to the type of construction work, and the concept of "total construction cost" that is not prescribed by the mother Act, in light of the purport of the system that determines the total amount of labor cost by delegation of Article 62(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 5881 of Feb. 8, 1995), which is difficult to determine according to the total amount of labor cost determined and announced by the Minister of Labor, the concept of "total construction cost" cannot be interpreted as "the total construction cost" as "the total construction cost" that is not prescribed by the mother Act or "the total construction cost" that is not prescribed by the mother Act, and the concept of "the total construction cost" can not be defined as "the total construction work cost" as "the total construction work cost".

[2] The case holding that in calculating the insurance premium under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, it is lawful to calculate the total amount of wages by applying the labor ratio to the total cost, on the ground that it is difficult to grasp the cost of direct labor by the enterpriser who is the original contractor, but it is difficult to compute the cost of external labor, on the ground that it falls under the case where it is difficult to determine

[1] Articles 62, 65, and 67 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of Dec. 31, 199) / [2] Articles 62, 65, and 67 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of Dec. 31, 199)

Newsung Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Kim & Kim, Attorneys Kim Sung-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu4322 delivered on May 18, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Whether the notice is illegal

Article 65 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4826 of Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 5881 of Feb. 8, 1999; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that with respect to the report and payment of the estimated premium, Article 67 (1) of the Act shall apply to the report, payment and settlement of the final premium, and Article 62 (1) of the Act shall apply to the report, payment and settlement of the final premium, and Article 62 (1) of the Act shall be calculated by multiplying the total wage amount of the business operated by the insured by the premium rate applicable to the same kind of business as the total wage amount of the business operated by the insured, and Article 65 (2) of the same Act provides that “In case where it is difficult to determine the presumed amount of the total wage or the total wage amount of the total wage amount under Article 65 (1) of the Act, the Minister of Labor shall determine the presumed amount of the total wage or the total wage amount of the subcontractor, regardless of the final premium rate of labor.

On the other hand, Article 195-46 of the Ministry of Labor notification of December 27, 1995, Article 1996-52 of the Ministry of Labor notification of December 30, 1996, Article 1997-59 of the Ministry of Labor notification of December 30, 1997 (hereinafter “each notification of this case”) provides that “When it is difficult to determine wages which are the basis for calculating premiums in calculating estimated premiums and final premium under Articles 65(1) and 67(1) of the Act, the labor ratio to be applied shall be determined according to the following provisions of Article 62(2) of the Act, and the total cost of construction works shall be determined according to the type of total cost of construction works.”

Although each notice of this case used the concept of "total construction amount" that is not prescribed by the mother Act, and it is difficult to determine the total amount of wages, which are the basis for calculating the final premium for each insurance year, in light of the purport of the system that makes it difficult to determine the total amount of wages in accordance with the labor ratio determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Labor, the concept of "total construction amount" can be interpreted and applied in the same meaning as "total construction amount for the pertinent insurance year", and it is not clearly stated in the mother Act that the labor ratio to the original contractor of the construction work and the labor ratio to the subcontractor are not separately prescribed. In light of the above, each notice of this case is not deemed to be beyond the limit delegated by the mother Act, without delegation of the mother Act, or to change the criteria for calculating final premium under the mother Act unfavorable to the insured.

Although the reasoning of the judgment below is partially inappropriate, the conclusion that each notice of this case does not deviate from the delegation scope of the parent law is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. Whether the disposition is unlawful

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, when the plaintiff reported the final premium in 196, 197, and 198, it calculated the total amount of wages under direct labor expenses + (foreign cost + labor ratio). The defendant applied the labor ratio prescribed in each public notice of this case to calculate the total amount of wages x total construction cost x total construction cost x total construction cost x labor ratio, and conducted the settlement of final premium by calculating the total amount of wages by the formula of "labor ratio". On December 26, 1999, the plaintiff conducted the settlement of final premium 27,756,230 won, 196, 197, 53, 493, 570 won, 198, 214,039, 750 won (including additional dues) for each of the instant public notice of this case, and investigated the fact that each of the instant dispositions was conducted on the part of the insured who was the original contractor and determined the total amount of the subcontracted construction work.

Even if it is difficult to grasp the actual labor cost of the Plaintiff, who is the original contractor, as a result of easy understanding of the actual labor cost, the method of calculating the actual labor cost paid by the Plaintiff would be more accurate compared to the method of calculating the actual labor cost by multiplying the construction cost by the labor ratio, i.e., the calculation of the wage amount for the subcontract construction cost, so long as it is difficult to calculate the total labor cost for the subcontract construction cost, it is difficult to calculate the total labor cost, and this constitutes “where it is difficult to determine the total wage amount,” as provided in Article 62(2) of the Act, and therefore, it is justifiable to calculate the final premium by calculating the total wage amount by applying the labor ratio stipulated in each notice of this case, including the total labor cost of the directly operated construction and subcontracted construction work, which is difficult for the Defendant to determine the total wage amount of the Plaintiff.

In the same purport, the court below is just in finding the disposition of this case lawful, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the calculation of final premium under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which affected the conclusion

C. Therefore, the ground of appeal No. 1 is groundless.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, the court below rejected the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant applied the above method to the return and payment of industrial accident insurance premium by applying the method of "direct labor cost + (foreign cost x labor ratio)" to the plaintiff and construction business operators including the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have avoided the public opinion that it is right that the defendant applied the above method just because they did not raise any objection for a considerable period of time. In addition, Article 62 (2) of the Act on the Calculation of Total Wage, which is the basis of calculation of final premium, was newly established and enforced on May 1, 1995 by the amendment of the Act, and the decision of the court below to the effect that the defendant would calculate total construction price x labor ratio by "total construction price x labor ratio" after the announcement of the Minister of Labor to the effect that the plaintiff and the construction business operators who did not fulfill the duty of bona fide return, without recognizing the method of final premium calculated by the defendant's wrong application to the plaintiff and other business operators, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's ground of appeal was justified and justified.

The second ground for appeal is without merit.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

According to Articles 67(4) and 95 of the Act and Article 21(1) of the Administrative Management Regulations, when a defendant wishes to collect final premium and additional dues, he/she shall notify the defendant in writing stating the amount and time limit for payment, and shall affix official seals to the document. The reason for demanding the form of administrative act is to indicate that the act was performed by the administrative agency with authority, clarify the contents thereof, easily recognize the contents thereof, and ensure legal stability by preventing future disputes by securing evidence, and it does not affect the validity of the act if the lack of such form is minor.

According to the records, when the Defendant delivers the instant disposition to the Plaintiff along with the insurance premium collection notice along with the payment slip, the above payment slip specifies the essential amount and the payment deadline, while the above payment slip does not affix official seal, and only affix official seal on the notice of the investigation collection of the insurance premium.

In light of the above legal principles and factual relations, the notice of the investigation and collection of the above insurance premium and the statement of payment are all a document that notifies the payment of the final premium and the additional dues, and it is not deemed that there is a defect that may affect the validity of the act.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)