1. On September 19, 2018, the Plaintiff’s filing date on September 28, 2018, in the application form for the change of claim and cause of claim.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a corporation that is established around April 16, 1969 and engages in port loading and unloading business, producing, processing, and selling agricultural, fishery, and livestock products, manufacturing, processing, and selling food and beverages, and trading business.

The defendant confirmed that the plaintiff did not report the qualification of the employment provided policyholder to those who reported the daily employment income to the National Tax Service for at least 15 days a month from among those who reported the daily employment income to the National Tax Service, and for at least 2 months.

On September 5, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the sum total of KRW 97,814,080 of the health insurance premium and KRW 6,395,100 of the care insurance premium will be added to the total of KRW 104,209,180.

On September 19, 2018, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the total sum of KRW 104,209,180,000, total amount of health insurance premium of KRW 214,671,920 and the total amount of health insurance premium of KRW 14,946,40 and KRW 229,618,320.

A total of 93 workers who were determined by the Defendant to have omitted a report on qualification as an employment provided policyholder, and a member of the B trade union (hereinafter “instant trade union”) is 59.

(hereinafter “instant workers”). Of the said 93 workers, the national health insurance premiums consisting of 11,430,480 won, excluding the instant workers (i.e., health insurance premiums of KRW 10,728,500) (i.e., KRW 701,980)

(2) Of the disposition imposing the above settlement insurance premium, the part of the national health insurance premium to the employees of the instant case against the Plaintiff cannot be seen as a worker belonging to the Plaintiff. (3) Of the disposition imposing the above settlement insurance premium, each of the following facts: Gap's 1, 2, 5 through 7, Eul's 1 through 3, and 5 (including the main numbers), and the summary of the parties' assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of the instant case as a whole.

There was no individual employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has personnel rights to the said workers.