Criteria for determining kinds of businesses for applying the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rates announced publicly by the Minister of Labor.

In determining whether the type of business of an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder falls under any of the categories of business in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premium Table as determined by the Minister of Labor pursuant to Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the determination of whether the type of business of the policyholder falls under any of the categories of business in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premium Table shall be taken into account not only the purpose

Article 63(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu518 delivered on December 9, 198 (Gong1987, 170) Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1078 delivered on February 28, 1989 (Gong1989, 543) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu28 delivered on May 11, 1990 (Gong1990, 1278) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4204 Delivered on January 25, 1991 (Gong1991Sang, 877) Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10575 Delivered on June 24, 2003

Modern chain Co., Ltd. and three others (Attorney Lee Dong-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Daejeon High Court Decision 2001Nu1121 delivered on October 10, 2002

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

Article 63(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act determine whether the type of business of an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder constitutes a business among the industrial accident compensation insurance premium schedule set forth by the Minister of Labor pursuant to Article 60 of the same Act, it shall take into account not only the insured’s business purpose and place of business, but also the actual business and the form of work of employees (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu28, May 11, 1990; 90Nu4204, Jan. 25, 1991, etc.).

The court below, based on the adopted evidence, found the facts as stated in its reasoning. The plaintiffs' business objectives are not transportation of goods, but transportation of goods to customers using means of transportation as part of actual sale of goods, but they do not receive a separate fare. The plaintiffs' possibility of disaster in terms of the business form is very low compared to the general cargo handling business, and there was little accident due to occupational accidents. Furthermore, since the business operators belonging to the plaintiffs are mainly engaged in sales promotion or collection of goods to customers, and warehouse management employees are merely delivery or collection of goods to the customers, and they cannot be called as employees who directly drive transportation means, and employees in full charge of transportation means, such as automobile transportation and retail business, from among the business types of the above industrial accident compensation insurance premium rate table, the defendant's business type can not be viewed as the change of the plaintiffs' insurance premium rate, and the change of the plaintiffs' business type and sales of goods can not be viewed as illegal.

In light of the records, the relevant statutes and the above legal principles, the recognition and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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 Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)