1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a company whose business objective is metal pipe, manufacturing and sales business, etc., had business registration (business type: manufacturing business and category: metal pipe straws) from May 1, 2010, with business registration as its place of business 1 to 32254.

B. On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for changing the type of business of the Plaintiff’s industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “industrial accident insurance”) from “218 non-metallic mineral products and metal products manufacturing or metal processing business (insurance premium rate: 41/1,000)” to “223 machinery and appliances manufacturing business (insurance premium rate: 21/1,000)” (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On February 25, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant application should be returned for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The return grounds (Evidence 3) ① The work process conducted at the Plaintiff’s workplace is the main process of metal processing, such as cutting and melting, and ② The final product (a pentin) is the metal product used for various pipes, such as construction, heavy electricity, and vessels, and thus it is reasonable to return the instant application on the ground that it is difficult to view it as “the work conducted by the Plaintiff’s workplace by using cutting, blood saving, and other automatic machinery, etc., as the main process, using cutting, cutting, and other machinery, equipment, etc., which are contained in “23 machinery and appliances manufacturing business” in the table of the business type, as the main process is “a business manufacturing metal products or metal processing business (21816)”. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that it falls under “the business of manufacturing metal products from metal materials, or the business of repairing various machinery, equipment, etc., and therefore, it is reasonable to reject the instant application.

On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the claim on January 12, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 There is no dispute;