logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.08.11 2016구합75173
고용보험료 및 산업재해보상보험료 등 징수처분 취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff is a business owner who purchases employment insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance as a company that runs the interior business, construction business, etc.

On December 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) selected the Plaintiff as a place of business subject to the final settlement of accounts for construction business in the latter part of the year 2015; and (b) requested the submission of relevant data; (c) deemed that there was a difference between the total remuneration reported by the Plaintiff and the total remuneration investigated by the Defendant; and (d) determined the Plaintiff on December 4, 2015 (attached Form 1); (b) employment and industrial accident insurance premium in 2012 (Additional Collection Insurance Premium KRW 6,891,220; KRW 1,05,290); (c) employment and industrial accident insurance premium in 21,256,130 (Additional Collection Insurance Premium KRW 19,239,60; KRW 2,016,470); and (d) notified the Plaintiff of the payment of additional premium in 23,952,350 (Additional Collection Insurance Premium KRW 21,67,302,28,205).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The entry in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (attached Form 2);

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The difference between the total amount of remuneration reported by the Plaintiff and the total amount of remuneration investigated by the Defendant is because the amount related to the installation of signboards, flame retardation and completion cleaning (the amount paid by the Plaintiff to those enterprises) that are not included in the total cost when calculating the total amount of remuneration was included in the total cost of the remuneration calculated by the Defendant.

Since the amount related to the installation of a signboard, flame retardation, and completion cleaning should be excluded from the total cost of the plaintiff for the following reasons, the disposition of this case by the defendant, which is included in the total cost, should be revoked as unlawful.

(1) LABE - Signboards are those manufacturing and installing their signboards, so their installation works shall be conducted in the manufacturing industry of signboards in accordance with Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in accordance with the same provision.

arrow