Main Issues
[1] The standard for determining whether an act of a person liable for payment's report constitutes an unlawful or void as a matter of course in the payment of charges under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the employment insurance premium under the Employment Insurance Act, and the Wage Claim Guarantee Act.
[2] The case holding that the act of reporting and paying the amount of industrial accident insurance premiums, employment insurance premiums and wage claim guarantee charges calculated by adding the amount of special encouragement and special performance rates to the scope of total wages, which form the basis for calculating the above insurance premiums, etc. in the course of reporting and paying them, shall not be deemed as null and void as it is not objectively unreasonable, although the defects are serious,
Summary of Judgment
[1] The industrial accident insurance premiums under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, employment insurance premiums under the Employment Insurance Act, and charges under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, which are collected by the method of reporting (report) shall, in principle, be determined specifically by the act of reporting by the person liable for payment. The payment act is made by the performance of specific payment obligation confirmed by the person liable for payment. The Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service holds the charges paid in accordance with the credit confirmed as above. As such, even if there is a defect in the act of reporting by the person liable for payment, unless the act of reporting is null and void automatically and clearly, it shall not be deemed as unjust enrichment. Here, as to whether the defect in the act of reporting is null and void automatically and clearly, it shall be determined reasonably by taking into account the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes
[2] The case holding that the act of reporting and paying industrial accident insurance premiums, employment insurance premiums and wage claim guarantee charges, which are calculated by aggregating special encouragement and special performance rates within the scope of the total wage, which serves as the basis for calculating the above insurance premiums, etc., and the act of reporting and paying them, is serious, but it is not objectively clear and void.
[Reference Provisions]
[1] Article 741 of the Civil Act, Articles 4 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 57 and 65 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Articles 56 and 60 of the Employment Insurance Act, Articles 8 and 14 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act / [2] Article 741 of the Civil Act, Articles 4 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Reference Cases
[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da13075 decided Aug. 24, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2066) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72074 decided May 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1513)
Plaintiff, Appellant
Korea Broadcasting System (Law Firm Vindication, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant, Appellee
Korea Labor Welfare Corporation
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na 14374 delivered on August 29, 2002
Text
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The industrial accident insurance premium under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the employment insurance premium under the Employment Insurance Act, and the charges under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, which are collected by the method of reporting (report) shall, in principle, be determined specifically by the act of reporting by the person liable for payment, and the payment is made through the performance of the specific payment obligation confirmed by the reporting by the person liable for payment. The defendant holds the charges paid pursuant to the confirmed credit. As such, even if there is a defect in the reporting act by the person liable for payment, unless the act of reporting is null and void as a result of a serious and obvious defect, the paid charges shall not be deemed as unjust enrichment. Here, as to whether the act of reporting is null and void as a result of a significant and obvious defect, it shall be determined reasonably by taking into account the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the basis of the reporting act, the remedy for defective reporting act, and the specific circumstances leading to the act of reporting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da13075, Aug. 24, 2001>
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s temporary absence of the duty to report the amount of the insurance premium under the Labor Standards Act can not be deemed as the Plaintiff’s temporary absence of the duty to report the amount of the insurance premium under the Labor Standards Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s temporary absence of rules, non-regular and non-fixed benefits, and the amount of the insurance premium under the Labor Standards Act, including the scope of the total wage, which serves as the basis for calculating the insurance premium, etc., on December 21, 1999, was included in the scope of the total wage (10% of the basic wage), the special incentive amount (100% of the basic wage), and the special bonus amount (10% of the above special incentive amount; hereinafter referred to as the “special bonus amount, etc.”) of January 10, 200, as the Plaintiff’s temporary absence of the duty to report and pay the amount of the insurance premium under the Labor Standards Act, etc. to the Defendant.
Examining the judgment of the court below in light of the records and the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to remedies or the gravity of defect in the event that the insurance premium, etc. of this case was paid erroneously or erroneously.
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 Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)