2019Du62130 Action for revocation, such as a disposition of change in the type of business

A Stock Company

Law Firm Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Shin Young-chul, Lee Jin-jin, Park Young-jin, Park Young-young, and Park Young-chul

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Busan High Court Decision 2018Nu23732 Decided November 22, 2019

April 9, 2020

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. The term “disposition” as the subject of an administrative agency’s enforcement of law with respect to a specific fact (Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act), refers to the exercise or refusal of public authority, and other similar administrative actions (Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act). Whether an administrative agency’s act may be subject to appeal litigation cannot be determined objectively and generally. In specific cases, the determination should be made on an individual basis by taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form, and procedure of the act, the substantial relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties, such as the other party, and the principle of rule of law administration and the attitude of the administrative agency or interested parties related to the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du167, Nov. 18, 2010). In addition, where it is unclear whether an act of the administrative agency constitutes “disposition”, the determination should be made by taking into account the possibility and predictability of the other party having a significant interest in the method of appeal (see.

B. Examining the contents and systems of Articles 11(1), 12(1), 13(5), 14(3), 16-2, 16-6(1), 16-9(2) and (3), and 19-2 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance; Article 9 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act; and the Regulations on the Management of Application and Imposition of Administrative Affairs enacted for the purpose of stipulating the matters delegated by the above Acts and subordinate statutes and the matters necessary for the enforcement thereof, “the alteration of the type of business of an individual workplace against the business owner by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service” shall be deemed to constitute “the disposal as an exercise of public authority” as an enforcement of the Act on the Specific Facts conducted by an administrative agency (see Supreme Court Decision 2019Du61137, Apr. 9, 2020).

2. Nevertheless, on January 29, 2018, the lower court determined that Defendant Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service changed the type of business of a workplace subject to industrial accident insurance-related business to “doing, retailing, and consumer product repair business (type code: 9101) of various metals (type of business: 21814) and notified the Plaintiff of the change to that of operating a business (type of business: 21814), and did not constitute a disposition subject to appeal. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on a disposition subject to appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant Labor Welfare Corporation is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

2. Judgment of the presiding judge

Chief Justice Kim Jong-il

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Gin-soo