[1] Standard for determining whether a construction business constitutes a subject of blanket application for a contract business under Article 9(1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (=Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table)

[2] The case affirming the judgment below that the above disposition was unlawful on the ground that the above business does not constitute a construction business, in case where Gap entered into a contract with the Incheon Metropolitan City Incheon Metropolitan City and Eul and entered into a subcontract with Eul to produce and install a part of the sculptures which was designed and produced by Gap, and workers Byung employed by Eul company and died, and the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service paid Byung's lump-sum compensation, etc. to Byung's bereaved family members, and the above business constitutes the construction business, and the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service paid Byung's lump-sum compensation, etc., and the above business constituted Eul's construction business pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc.

[1] Article 9(1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, Articles 4 and 7(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance / [2] Article 9(1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, Articles 4 and 7(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu39696 decided April 15, 201

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the standard of determining whether a construction business is subject to blanket application of a contract business

A. The main sentence of Article 9(1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Insurance Premium Collection Act") provides that "When a project prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as construction business, is implemented through multiple contracts, the original contractor shall be deemed a business owner subject to this Act." Article 7(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Premium Collection Act") provides that "construction business, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as construction business, means a construction business," and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Premium Collection Act provides that "Except as otherwise provided for in this Decree, the scope of construction business, etc. shall be governed by the Korean Standard Industrial Classification publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea under the Statistics Act."

Article 9(1) of the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049, Dec. 31, 2003); Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 216, Dec. 31, 2004) did not impose restrictions on the business subject to the block application of the subcontract business; Article 7047 of the Insurance Premium Collection Act (amended by Act No. 7047, Dec. 31, 2003); Article 7 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 216, Dec. 31, 2004) did not put restrictions on the establishment, termination, and payment and collection of insurance premiums under the Employment Insurance Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”); however, the Insurance Premium Collection Act (amended by Act No. 7047, Dec. 31, 2003) puts the primary contractor into construction business.

In light of the fact that Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Premium Collection Act (hereinafter “Insurance Premium Collection Act”) did not directly specify what provision is related to the said Act, the title of the said Act is “scope of construction business, etc.” and the main text of Article 9(1) of the Insurance Premium Collection Act (hereinafter “Insurance Premium Collection Act”) uses the phrase “business prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as construction business, etc., when a business prescribed by Presidential Decree, is implemented through multiple contracts of construction business, the original contractor shall be deemed to be a business owner subject to the application of this Act” and it is logical and systematic to interpret Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Premium Collection Act as a provision that sets the criteria for determining the business subject to a blanket application of a contracting business

In addition, in light of the legislative history as seen earlier, the main text of Article 9(1) of the Insurance Premium Collection Act and Article 7(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Premium Collection Act limit the business subject to blanket application of contracting business, unlike the former Industrial Accident Insurance Act, to a construction business, and Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Premium Collection Act separately provides that the scope of the business subject to blanket application of contracting business can be changed to a long time according to changes in social and economic conditions. Therefore, the legislative purpose of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Premium Collection Act is to determine the scope of

Therefore, the issue of whether construction business is subject to blanket application of contract business under Article 9(1) of the Insurance Premium Collection Act should be based on the Korean Standard Industrial Classification publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea.

The court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which determined whether the business of this case constitutes a construction business based on the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table, and there is no error of law by misapprehending legal principles, such as where the court below erred in interpreting the Industrial Accident Insurance Act and the Insurance Premium Collection Act.

2. Whether the instant business constitutes a construction business under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table

In the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table publicly notified by the Commissioner of the Statistics Korea in 2008, "construction business" includes activities such as blasting, drilling, excavation, suspension, etc. for ground creation, and activities such as construction of new buildings and structures, extension, reconstruction, remodeling, repair, repair, dismantling, etc. in construction sites, which include activities of constructing temporary buildings, prefabricated buildings and structures. In the case of directly assembling and installing them at a major business entity which manufactures or sells structures, etc., it shall be classified as manufacturing or sales business according to its main activities, but if it can be separated and grasped into an independent business entity, a specific department which conducts only the specialized construction business.

The court of first instance, which maintained as it was, determined on May 6, 204 that the Plaintiff was engaged in manufacturing and installing a 1string-type 5 square meters of the instant structure, including sculptures, steel structure, and stone, on the ground that the Plaintiff was engaged in manufacturing and installing a 1string-type 5 square meters of the instant structure, on the ground that the 1string-type 1string-type 3 square meters of the instant structure and the instant 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 3 square meters of the instant structure (hereinafter “the instant 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 1string-type 30th of the instant structure (hereinafter “the instant 1string-type 1string-type 20th of the instant structure”).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the definition and classification criteria of construction business under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table, the lower court’s above findings of fact and determination are justified.

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension and application of the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The ground of appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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 Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)