In case where a company runs a different kind of business to which premium rates are applied for each business place with different business places, the criteria for determining whether the industrial accident compensation insurance relationship is established.

In order to determine where the type of business of a company falls under any of the industrial accident insurance premium table in the notification of the Ministry of Labor, it shall be taken into account equally the license or registered type of business as well as the real contents of business and the type of work. Where it is deemed that at least two types of business are operated within the same place of business, any of them shall be determined whether the main business is the business. However, where one company differently engages in different types of business in each place of business, unless it falls under the block application of the industrial accident compensation insurance relationship, it shall first be determined whether the industrial accident compensation insurance relationship is established at each

Articles 5, 7(1) and (2), and 13 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6100 of Dec. 31, 1999); Article 3(1)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16871 of Jun. 27, 2000)

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1078 Decided February 28, 1989 (Gong1989, 543) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu28 Decided May 11, 1990 (Gong1990, 1278), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4204 Decided January 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 877), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2328 Decided December 24, 191 (Gong192, 702)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu9501 delivered on July 3, 2002

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. The court below found that the defendant's interior equipment business, packaging business, and promotional business (hereinafter "non-party company")'s business with five or more employees employed in the non-party 1 corporation's business and engaged in the sales business of promotional products and applied the premium rate of 6/1,00 to "do retail business and consumer product repair business (business type 905)" among other business (business type 905) under the Industrial Accident Insurance Rate Table publicly notified by the Ministry of Labor and determined that the non-party 4 company's industrial accident insurance business's industrial accident insurance relation was unlawful because it is hard to view that the non-party 1 company's industrial accident insurance business's industrial accident prevention business's industrial accident of 6/1,00 is its head office or non-party 4 company's industrial accident prevention business's industrial accident of 36/1,000 or non-party 1 company's industrial accident prevention business's industrial accident of 6/7 days after being contracted with the non-party 1 company's industrial accident insurance business's industrial accident of 80.

2. In order to determine where the type of business of a company falls under any of the industrial accident insurance premium table publicly notified by the Ministry of Labor, it shall be taken into account not only the license or registered type of business, but also the real contents of business and the type of work. In a case where it is recognized that at least two types of business have been conducted within the same place of business, it shall determine which type of business is the main business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2328, Dec. 24, 191). However, in a case where a company differently engages in different types of business with different premium rates for each place of business, the establishment of industrial accident insurance relationship should be examined first, unless it falls under the block application of the business.

According to the facts established by the court below, the non-party company has employed the necessary figures from the place of business of the headquarters that operates the sales business of promotional products, and operated the tegrative construction business by employing the necessary figures at the dong Sea, Changwon and Incheon Sung, and such tegrative construction business constitutes not the "other various businesses (business type 905), but the "general construction (A)" as applied to the sales business of promotional products.

Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the industrial accident insurance relationship has been established for each interior work in the East Sea, Changwon, Incheon, etc., and as for the interior work in Incheon in which the deceased suffered an accident, the industrial accident insurance relationship is not established as a matter of course since the construction cost falls short of 40 million won, and the industrial accident insurance relationship is established only when the business owner of the non-party company voluntarily purchased the industrial accident insurance with the approval of the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service. Since the non-party company did not have purchased the industrial accident insurance for the above construction work, the disposition of this case refusing to apply the industrial accident insurance for the deceased's accident cannot be deemed unlawful.

Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the non-party company was not a separate establishment for the reason that it did not establish a separate office or operate a separate organization with respect to the instant work site. Thus, the disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the industrial accident insurance relationship was established with respect to the above construction site. In so doing, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the industrial accident insurance-related business site, or by misapprehending legal principles, thereby affecting

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)