[1] The scope of "provided policyholder" whose employer is liable to pay insurance premiums under Article 68 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, and whether an individual's obligation to pay insurance premiums constitutes an indivisible obligation of joint users (negative)

[2] The meaning of a workplace under the National Health Insurance Act

[3] The case holding that the joint law offices jointly operated by five joint businessmen and the individual law offices operated individually by each joint businessman are separate workplaces under the National Health Insurance Act

[4] The case holding that the disposition of imposition of insurance premiums by an individual among the employment provided policyholders of the joint law office does not constitute a correction or correction of the previous disposition of imposition of insurance premiums, which is separate from that of the previous disposition of imposition of insurance premiums by the employees among

[1] It is reasonable to deem that the employee insured liable to pay the insurance premium under Article 68(1) of the National Health Insurance Act is limited to the employee who is entitled to deduct the insurance premium from the remuneration upon establishing an employment relationship with the employer and having an employment relationship with the employer. The said employee insured also cannot be deemed to include other joint employers of the pertinent workplace that is not in such relationship. Furthermore, considering that the health insurance is compulsory insurance, the individual’s obligation of insurance premium owed by the joint user does not constitute an indivisible obligation in its nature among the

[2] Under the National Health Insurance Act, a place of business shall be deemed to refer to a place of business or an office as a business unit that establishes an employment relationship with the relevant employee and operates a certain business activity, and it shall not be deemed as a simple physical and spatial concept.

[3] The case holding that a joint law office operated jointly by five joint business operators and a private law office operated individually by each of their own independent offices are not a single place of business under the National Health Insurance Act, in light of the fact that the joint law office operated jointly by five joint business operators and their employees were separately registered and their employees were separately reported, and the business income was also separately reported.

[4] The case holding that the disposition of imposition of insurance premiums by an individual among the employment provided policyholders of the joint law office does not constitute a correction or correction of the previous disposition of imposition of insurance premiums, which is separate from the previous disposition of imposition of insurance premiums by the employees among the said employment provided

[1] Articles 6(2) and 68(1) of the National Health Insurance Act, Article 411 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 3 subparag. 3 and 6(2) of the National Health Insurance Act / [3] Articles 3 subparag. 3 and 6(2) of the National Health Insurance Act / [4] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Yang-nam, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

National Health Insurance Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu14044 decided May 2, 2006

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was lawful, on the ground that five individual health insurance premiums owed by the Plaintiff, etc., the joint business owner of the instant joint legal office, including the Plaintiff, constitute an indivisible obligation among them.

However, this decision of the court below is not acceptable for the following reasons.

In order to hold a joint and several liability for another person's obligation, it shall be limited to cases where there are special provisions in the law or where there are special circumstances such as that the obligation falls under an indivisible obligation due to its nature, and the issue of whether the law provides a joint and several liability for the obligation of another person is related to the guarantee of property rights

Based on these legal principles, examining the relevant provisions of the former National Health Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8034, Oct. 4, 2006; hereinafter “Health Insurance Act”), the Health Insurance Act provides that workers and employers of all workplaces shall become an employment provided policyholder (main sentence of Article 6(2)). Meanwhile, Article 68(1) provides that employers shall pay insurance premiums for the relevant month after deducting the amount to be borne by an employment provided policyholder from their remuneration (Article 68(3)). Meanwhile, it can be said that employers are liable to deduct the amount of insurance premiums for the relevant workplace from their remuneration. In light of the relevant provisions, the Act provides that employers are jointly and severally liable for the payment of insurance premiums for the households to which the relevant employer belongs, and that employers are jointly and severally liable for the payment of insurance premiums for the relevant workplace. However, considering that there is no separate provision on joint and several insurance premiums for an employment provided policyholder, the Supreme Court held that each employer is liable to pay insurance premiums for industrial accident compensation insurance premiums of the relevant workplace, referring to the Supreme Court Decision 9600Da22.

Therefore, the instant disposition that allowed five individuals, including the Plaintiff, who are joint users of the joint law office of this case, to pay all the insurance premiums of the Plaintiff cannot be deemed unlawful for the part exceeding the part that the Plaintiff is liable to pay. In this regard, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legal nature of an individual’s obligation to pay the insurance premiums.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the Health Insurance Act, the term "workplace" means a place of business or an office (Article 3 subparag. 3), workers and employers of all places of business shall be an employment provided policyholder (Article 6(2)), and the term "worker" means those who live on remunerations in consideration of the type of occupation (including directors and other officers of a corporation) except for public officials and school employees under the provisions of subparagraphs 4 and 5 (Article 3 subparag. 1); and the employer means the business owner, etc. of a place of business to which the relevant worker belongs (Article 3 subparag. 2(a)). In light of the fact that Article 3 subparag. 2(a) of the Health Insurance Act provides that a place of business means a place of business or an office in which the relevant worker has an employment relationship with the relevant worker and engage in certain business activities, and this does not constitute a simple physical and temporary concept.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited by the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the joint law office of this case and the plaintiff's personal law office of this case, which are operated jointly by five joint business operators including the plaintiff, constitute a single business establishment on the ground that the joint law office of this case and the plaintiff's personal law office of this case were separate businesses, and their individual law office were separately registered, and their business income were reported.

Examining the above legal principles in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the subject of insurance premium.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

According to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, although five attorneys-at-law, including the plaintiff, are co-owners of the joint law office of this case as a result of regular guidance and inspection of the joint law office of this case around June 2004, the defendant confirmed that the above co-owners were omitted from the insurance premium when imposing the previous insurance premium, and made a disposition to require the plaintiff to pay the insurance premium from August 2001 to August 2004, when the previous insurance premium was omitted (part of the previous disposition of this case). Accordingly, the previous disposition of imposition of the insurance premium was issued prior to the employment provided policyholders of the joint law office of this case concerning the insurance premium of the workers of the employment provided policyholders. The above part of the previous disposition of this case concerning the insurance premium of the employment provided policyholders, which is separate from the previous disposition of imposition of the insurance premium, and it cannot be said that the previous disposition of imposition of the insurance premium was modified or corrected. Accordingly, the plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing out that the above part of the previous disposition of this case constitutes a correction or correction of the previous disposition cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)