(a) Method of determining the main business subject to premium rates, in cases where two or more types of business are carried out within the same business place;

(b) The case holding that the main business is subject to the premium rate in the case where the publishing business and the printing and reproduction business are simultaneously conducted within the same business place, whose ratio of possession of sales is much higher than that of the publishing business;

A. In order to determine where the type of business of a company determines where it falls under any of the categories of business for the application of the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rates publicly notified by the Ministry of Labor, the company shall take into account not only the licensed or registered type of business, but also the actual contents of business and the type of work. If it is recognized that the business subject to the premium rate is two or more kinds of business within the same place of business, the company shall determine as its main business the larger portion of the number of workers and total wages, etc. among them pursuant to Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, but if it is difficult to clearly and clearly distinguish them, the company shall determine its main business

(b) The case recognizing the main business subject to premium rates as publishing business in the purport that the publishing business in the same place of business is engaged in planning, editing, printing, reproducing, and selling publications, etc. and the printing, reproduction, etc. of printed materials by another person's order, and that the number of workers engaged in publishing business and printing, and the total wage amount are the same in light of the company's organization and type of work, etc., and thus, the possession ratio of the sales amount constitutes the main product or main service.

Article 21 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1078 delivered on February 28, 1989 (Gong1989,543) 90Nu28 delivered on May 11, 1990 (Gong1990,1278) 90Nu4204 delivered on January 25, 1991 (Gong191,877)

Dongdong Publication Co., Ltd., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

The head of Seoul Central Labor Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu14586 delivered on January 30, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

In order to determine where the type of business of a company is corresponding to any of the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rates notified by the Ministry of Labor, it shall be taken into account not only the licensed or registered type of business, but also the actual contents of business and the type of work. If it is recognized that at least two types of business are operated within the same place of business, it shall determine whether to operate the main business in which the proportion of the number of workers, total wages, etc. among them is larger under Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. However, if it is difficult to clearly or clearly distinguish the number of workers and total wages engaged in the two or more categories of businesses above, the main business shall be determined by considering what the main products or services are similar to those of the workplace concerned

The court below held that the publishing business under the Standard Industrial Accident Insurance Table publicly notified by the Ministry of Labor in 1989 and each explanation of printing and main business under the Standard Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Table publicly notified by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Council and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy is in a relationship between the publishing business that the plaintiff company plans, edits, print, present, and sell publications, etc. within the plaintiff company's business place and the printing and main business that carries out printing and main works on the other party's order in consideration of the organization of the plaintiff company and the type of work, etc., and therefore, the same applies to the number of workers engaged in publishing and printing and main business in light of the organization of the plaintiff company and the type of work, etc., and therefore, the decision that recognized the plaintiff company's main business as publishing business in the purport that the ratio of the sales amount falls under the main product or main service that is much higher than the ratio of the plaintiff company's sales amount is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the classification of business types and the recognition of the main business.

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.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)