[1] Whether Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, which applies where a business owner operates two different types of businesses in one place of business (negative)

[2] The method of determining whether the type of business of an insured who engages in temporary work agency business among industrial accident compensation insurance subscribers constitutes one of the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rate table

[3] The case holding that a temporary work agency business operator's dispatch of workers to a workplace to conduct guard and cleaning service is a temporary work agency service related to the management of the building and cleaning service, which is included in the scope of "comprehensive management business of buildings, etc. (90101)" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premium Rate, and it can be deemed that it falls under one kind of business "comprehensive management business of buildings, etc.", which is conducted in a single workplace

[1] Article 14(3) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, Articles 13 and 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that "only in a case where the business under Article 14(3) of the same Act is operated in one place with two or more different types of businesses, the premium rate applicable to the main business with a large portion of the number of workers and total wages, etc. among them shall apply to all businesses within the relevant place." Since the premium rate table for industrial accident compensation insurance publicly notified under the Enforcement Decree of the same Act specifically indicates the type of business to which the same premium rate applies, in the case of a business owner who runs the same type of business, there is no room for applying Article 14 of the same Enforcement Decree to the case where two different businesses are conducted at one place of business.

[2] In determining whether a type of business of an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder falls under any type of business in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, the determination should take into account not only the insured’s business purpose and the registered type of business but also the actual contents of business and the workers’ form of work. Thus, even in the case of an insured who engages in a temporary work agency business, the premium rate for the type of business corresponding to the actual type of work that the worker who provides

[3] The case holding that a temporary work agency business operator's dispatch of workers to a workplace to have them engaged in guard and cleaning service, and cleaning service at the workplace constitutes a "management business such as indoor cleaning, etc. conducted on a building, etc.", which is included in the category of "comprehensive management business of a building, etc." under the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums for Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (901) pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums for Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, and that such business constitutes a "comprehensive management business of a building, etc." in one workplace

[1] Article 14(3) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, Article 13 and Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance / [2] Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance / [3] Articles 13 and 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10582 Decided June 27, 2003 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu28 Decided May 11, 1990 (Gong1990, 1278) Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10582 Decided June 27, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1637) Supreme Court Decision 2007Du10488 Decided May 8, 2008

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Gwangju High Court Decision 2008Nu2438 Decided April 17, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 14(3) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter “the Act”), Articles 13 and 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that only where two or more different types of business are operated in one place under the provisions of Article 14(3) of the Act, the insurance premium rate applicable to the main business with a large portion of the number of workers, total wages, etc. among them shall apply to all the businesses within the relevant place. The insurance premium rate table for industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “insurance premium rate table”) publicly notified pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the above Act specifically indicates the same insurance premium rate for each type of business. As such, Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act that applies to cases where a business is operated in one place of business falling under the same type of business as the above insurance premium rate table, there is no room to apply to cases where a business type of industrial accident compensation insurance subscribers falls under any one of the above insurance premium rate table for industrial accident compensation insurance workers, the business type should be determined by taking into account not only the registered business type and actual type of business but also the business type.

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned legal principles, relevant statutes, and the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff's business of this case that the plaintiff, a temporary work agency business operator, dispatched 7 workers engaged in security service and 2 workers engaged in cleaning service work at the non-party company's workplace, and offered the whole building management-related security service and cleaning service together, constitutes an indoor cleaning business conducted by a building, etc. (901) included in the scope of "comprehensive management business of a building, etc." under the above premium rate table, and it can be deemed that it falls under one type of business "comprehensive management business of a building, etc.". Thus, on the premise that the plaintiff's business falls under "lease and business service (90502)" (902) under the above premium rate table, the plaintiff's business of this case constitutes a temporary work agency business operator who provides two different businesses at the same workplace. Thus, the ground of appeal that Article 14 (3) of the Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act should not be justified.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case to which the insurance premium rate for the above "comprehensive management business of buildings, etc." is applied to the plaintiff's business of this case is legitimate, and the judgment of the court below dismissing the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the disposition of this case is somewhat inappropriate, but its conclusion is justified.

Furthermore, insofar as the Defendant did not err in applying the insurance premium rate to the Plaintiff’s instant workplace, even if the Defendant did not apply different insurance premium rates to part of similar companies, or did not notify the Plaintiff of the execution of final settlement only to the Plaintiff’s workplace, such circumstance alone does not lead to an error in the disposition of this case, consistent with the relevant statutes. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s reply to inquiries between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which are cited in the grounds of appeal, do not seem to go against the objective interpretation of the relevant statutes. Therefore, the allegation in the grounds of appeal as to this point is without merit, and the allegation that the lower court erred in its judgment by assuming facts different from this case cannot be a

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of business types under the above premium rate table as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)