beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On October 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 48,809,040 as of November 10, 2016, calculated on the basis of the total amount of remuneration for which the Plaintiff’s representative director did not deduct the deduction, according to the Defendant’s notice of imposition of health insurance premiums.
This is in accordance with the disposition of imposing illegal health insurance premiums, and since the defect is grave and obvious, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 48,809,040 as unjust enrichment.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. Even if the administrative disposition based on the determination is unlawful, the effect of the administrative disposition is not denied on the ground of its defect, except where the defect is significant and obvious, and there is a ground to view it as invalid as a matter of course. Thus, the fairness of such administrative act is not the same as res judicata of the judgment. However, if the defect in the administrative act within the objective scope of the impartiality is not attributable to the ground to revoke the administrative disposition, the validity of the disposition is denied, unless the disposition is revoked. Thus, the benefit arising therefrom cannot be viewed as
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da28000 delivered on November 11, 1994). In order for an administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and it should be objectively obvious that the defect is in contravention of an essential part of the law and is significant, and objectively obvious. In determining the importance and clear margin of defects, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be considered as a objectiveological approach and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself.
(2) The Supreme Court Decision 2003Du2403 Decided November 26, 2004 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du2403, Nov. 26, 2004).