1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Type of industrial accident compensation insurance provided by the Defendant on August 8, 2013 to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 18, 2013, the Plaintiff started the business upon entrustment of PDI (Preredelivery) duties to conduct a pre-inspection of the completed vehicle manufactured in modern automobiles and a car manufactured in modern automobiles from Hyundai Groman Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mogle”) at the place of business (hereinafter “instant place of business”) located in Indones-si, Indones-si, Indones-si (hereinafter “instant place of business”) on July 1, 2013.

B. On July 16, 2013, after the commencement of the above business, the Plaintiff was notified by the Defendant that the type of business in the industrial accident compensation insurance is “land cargo handling business (type code 50405, industrial accident insurance premium rate 30/1,000)”.

Accordingly, on July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the Defendant to the effect that “the decision on the type of business was erroneous” was made by telephone. On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “the instant workplace was a fact-finding report on the instant workplace by facsimile, and sent documents, such as PDI business contract, (ju), Cheongma organization, ex-factory PDI business PEW, and the Defendant’s fact-finding report on the instant workplace on July 28, 2013, the Plaintiff also argued to the effect that “justifiable type of business is a transportation ancillary service business (type code 50801, industrial accident insurance premium rate 9/1,000).”

C. After that, the Defendant determined that the detailed work, inspection, repair, etc. of the completion vehicle of the instant workplace was the Plaintiff’s main work as a result of a fact-finding survey on the instant workplace, and concluded on August 8, 2013, that “In response to the improper application of the industrial accident insurance type requested by an return workplace, the review was conducted based on the following relevant provisions,” and did not change the type of business to “land cargo handling business (industrial premium rate of 30/1,000)” of the Plaintiff’s initial notification as “traffic unit service business (industrial premium rate of 9/1,000)” as required by the Plaintiff, and instead changed to “automobile and mother association repair business (type code 23501, industrial accident insurance premium rate of 18/1,000).”