1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established under the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund, which establishes and operates a branch office in consideration of the jurisdictional area and the administrative district. The Plaintiff’s Yangyang Seoul Branch (hereinafter “instant workplace”) has been subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act from January 1, 200 to “any other business (business)” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

B. As a result of conducting a fact-finding survey on the instant workplace around October 2015, Defendant Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare notified the Plaintiff that the main business of the instant workplace is operating irrigation facilities to provide agricultural water. On November 27, 2015, Defendant Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare changed the type of industrial accident insurance business at the instant workplace from January 1, 200 to “agricultural (804 agricultural service business)” under the Industrial Accident Insurance Premium Rate for each type of business publicly notified by the Minister of Employment and Labor (hereinafter “Industrial Type Table”) from January 1, 2000.

(hereinafter “instant change disposition”). C.

Accordingly, on December 9, 2015, the Defendant Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of additional industrial accident insurance premium of KRW 21,460,670 in 2012, KRW 19,256,590 in 2013, KRW 18,087,30 in 2014, and the Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation notified the Plaintiff of the collection of additional industrial accident insurance premium of KRW 18,087,30 in 2014.

(hereinafter “instant collection disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff appealed to the instant modified disposition and the collection disposition (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but all of the appeals were dismissed on August 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 through 4, and Eul evidence 9 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 works with 5 employees belonging to the regional development department among 30 employees of the entire workplace of this case.