logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.10.29 2015구합59297
고용.산재보험료 반환불가 처분취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The main claim and the ancillary claim in the instant lawsuit are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Case history

A. Pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act”), the Plaintiff, who runs a construction business, filed a return with the Defendant on the total amount of KRW 472,704,120 (i.e., KRW 137,051,860 in 2012,53,560 in 212,53,560 in 2012, and KRW 123,098,70 in 2013, on December 18, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff was not liable to return the insurance premium to the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 121,303,868 in us unit (hereinafter “Industrial Property Collection Act”).

B. On January 8, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal to refund the key insurance premium on the ground that “The domestic business offices of the non-party original contractor alleged by the Plaintiff are merely business offices operated with a unique number, and do not fall under the domestic business offices subject to Article 9(2) of the Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act, and thus, the Plaintiff is responsible for paying the insurance premium.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant reply”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 2 and 3, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the part concerning the primary claim among the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The gist of the primary claim is that the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the return of the premium overpaid or erroneously paid to the Plaintiff based on Articles 23(1) and 42 of the Employment and Industrial Accident Collection Act, and the Plaintiff is not deemed to have filed a request for correction pursuant to Article 17(5) of the Employment and Industrial Accident Collection Act.

(b) refuse to do so;

arrow