1. On October 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff to return a modified report on the type of industrial accident compensation insurance business.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 14, 2017, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on the change of the type of business, which is the basis for determining the Plaintiff’s industrial accident compensation insurance premium rate (hereinafter “industrial accident insurance premium rate”) under the Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Collection Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Premium Collection Act”), from the previous “21816 other metal product manufacturing or metal processing business,” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premium Rate Table by type of business (hereinafter “e.g., this title”) published by the Minister of Labor in 2017, to the “25 electronic equipment manufacturing business” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premium Classification by type of business (hereinafter “e.g., this title”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant report”). (b) This report

On October 25, 2017, the Defendant rejected the instant report on the ground that the Plaintiff’s business type is reasonable to apply the same as the previous one.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant refusal disposition”). C.

Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as stated in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 6 to 8, purport of whole pleadings

2. In light of the Plaintiff’s alleged product and its process characteristics, workers’ form of work, etc., the Plaintiff’s business type constitutes not “21816 other metal product manufacturing or metal processing business,” but “22504 telecommunications machinery and equipment or related machinery and equipment manufacturing business,” and thus, the instant refusal disposition is unlawful.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. In order to determine where the type of business of a company in the relevant legal doctrine intends to apply the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rates as notified by the Minister of Labor, it is necessary to take into account not only the licensed or registered type of business, but also the actual contents of business and the form of work.

(Supreme Court Decision 86Nu518 delivered on December 9, 1986, etc.). B.

Judgment

Article 12 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Insurance Premium Collection Act.