1. The Defendant’s industrial accident compensation insurance fees of KRW 126,571,330 for the Plaintiff on November 27, 2015, and employment insurance premiums of KRW 34,939.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of settling accounts based on the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter “Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act”) from 2012 to 2014 with respect to the Plaintiff’s workplace, the Defendant imposed KRW 70,698,170 on the Plaintiff on November 27, 2015, based on the Plaintiff’s insurance premium and industrial accident compensation insurance premium (the remainder for which the Plaintiff reported and paid the remainder; hereinafter the same shall apply), 235,02,50 won (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Premium Collection Act”) on the part of the amount that the Plaintiff included in the account as a raw material in the financial statements.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff submitted explanatory materials regarding the part corresponding to the raw materials among the part included in the cost of outsourcing, and the Defendant reflected this in and reduced the above employment insurance premium to 34,939,170 won on January 18, 2016, and the above industrial accident insurance premium to 126,571,330 won, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” for the remaining portion of the disposition of imposition on November 27, 2015. Detailed details are as shown in attached Table 1.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3-4 each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to Articles 16-2(2), 19(4), and 13(6) of the Insurance Premium Collection Act by deeming the Plaintiff as a constructor under the Insurance Premium Collection Act, the Defendant estimated the total remuneration by multiplying the total remuneration amount by the ratio of the publicly notified labor cost (32%) to the Minister of Employment and Labor (32%). However, the Plaintiff’s main business is CCTV system, vehicle number reading machine, parking management system, integrated control software, etc.; the Plaintiff’s main business is manufacturing business and information service business that develop and supplies CCTV systems, vehicle number reading system, parking management system, integrated control software, etc.; and it is engaged in an information and communications construction business incidental to the above establishment business, so it is unlawful to calculate the total remuneration estimated

(2) If the Plaintiff is a constructor, the Plaintiff is also a constructor.