Standard for determining kinds of businesses for applying the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rates announced publicly by the Minister of Labor.

In order to determine where the business type of a company is equivalent to any of the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rates notified by the Minister of Labor, it shall take into account not only the licensed or registered business type, but also the real business contents and the work type. If two or more kinds of businesses are conducted together, it shall be determined by considering the business type which is larger in the number of workers, total wages, etc.

Article 21 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu518 delivered on December 9, 1986 (Gong1987,170) 87Nu1078 delivered on February 28, 1989 (Gong1989,543) 90Nu28 delivered on May 11, 1990 (Gong190,1278)

Han Engineering Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Daegu Regional Labor Agency

Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu214 delivered on April 25, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to determine where the type of business of a company falls under any of the categories of business for the application of the industrial accident compensation insurance premium rates notified by the Minister of Labor, it shall take into account not only the license or registered type of business, but also the actual contents of business and the form of work. If two or more kinds of businesses are conducted together, it shall be determined by making a report on whether the business with a large portion of workers, total wages, etc. is a business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu518, Dec. 9, 1986; 87Nu1078, Feb. 28, 1989; 90Nu28, May 11, 1990).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the business activities of the plaintiff company in 1987 and 1988, which began after the registration of incorporation on October 13, 1984, especially the period subject to the imposition of the industrial accident compensation insurance premium in this case, as the original adjudication, and ruled that the business types of the plaintiff company constitute machinery and equipment works (1987) or general construction works (1988) among the construction businesses notified by the Minister of Labor, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the business types of the plaintiff company constitute the manufacturing business, and compared with the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below's fact-finding and legal judgment are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)