Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

National Health Insurance Corporation

March 24, 2016

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Da55306 Decided October 20, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

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

3. The part of the Plaintiff’s request for a change on March 18, 2016, which is added to the conjunctive claim for a nullification of the disposition, is not permitted.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctively confirmed that there is no obligation of the plaintiff to the defendant for employment and childbirth insurance premiums 7,263,340 won for new construction of ground neighborhood living facilities and multi-household houses in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11 million won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment (the plaintiff shall seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation and the return of unjust enrichment on the ground of the original invalidation of the disposition, and shall add the confirmation of the existence of the obligation and the claim for damages arising from the tort in the first instance. In addition, at the trial of the party, the plaintiff filed a preliminary claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation and the claim for confirmation of the invalidity of the disposition of employment and childbirth as an alternative claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation, but this court did not permit

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s application for the change of the claim filed on March 18, 2016 permits the preliminary addition of the claim seeking nullification of the disposition

In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the existence of the obligation and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment arising from the invalidation of disposition. On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff added the claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation and the claim for damages arising from a tort as a preliminary cause for the claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation, and on the claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation, the Plaintiff filed an application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, added to the preliminary claim for confirmation of the invalidity of disposition that “the imposition of employment and industrial premium on the construction of the ground neighborhood living facilities and multi-household new housing that

However, the objective consolidation of claims is allowed only in cases where the same kind of litigation procedures are followed (Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Act). It cannot be combined with the claim for nullification of a disposition subject to an administrative litigation in this case following the civil litigation procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da42250 delivered on November 26, 1999, which is cited by the plaintiff, has the jurisdiction over the administrative litigation at the same time by the court of the lawsuit, and it does not apply to this case).

Therefore, it is not permitted to add the plaintiff's application for the change of the claim on March 18, 2016 to the preliminary claim for nullification of the imposition of employment and industrial accident insurance premiums.

2. Basic facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the part of Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, so this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited.

3. As to the primary claim on the ground of invalidity of a disposition imposing the premium

(a) Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning for this part is as follows, in addition to the addition of the judgment of the defendant to the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defense of this part, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Additional determination

1) The assertion

As long as the plaintiff can file a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the disposition imposing insurance premiums through administrative litigation, the lawsuit to confirm the existence of the debt of this case cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's rights or legal status's existing apprehensions or risks. Therefore, there is no benefit in confirmation.

2) Determination

A) When the issue is whether an administrative disposition in a civil lawsuit is a legitimate invalidation or not, it can be judged and judged on the premise that it is a legitimate invalidation, and it does not necessarily require the revocation or invalidity by the procedure of administrative litigation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da90092, Apr. 8, 2010).

B) As long as the Defendant contests the existence of an insurance premium debt, the Plaintiff appears to have a benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of an obligation on the premise that the insurance premium imposition disposition is void as a matter of course. Therefore, the above assertion is

4. As to the conjunctive claim on the ground of tort

(a) Grounds for claims;

1) The Defendant imposed the insurance premium on the Plaintiff even though the business owner of the instant workplace was Nonparty 1 of the contractor, and there was no employment/industrial accident insurance relationship with the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition to impose the

2) As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 18,262,340, which are imposed on the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages. The Plaintiff is offset by the amount equal to KRW 7,263,340 with the Plaintiff’s remaining insurance premium liability.

3) If so, since the Plaintiff’s insurance premium’s liability 7,263,340 won was all extinguished by offset, the Defendant is obligated to verify that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s insurance premium, and to pay the remainder of KRW 11 million (=18,262,340-7,263,340) as damages.

B. Determination

The written evidence Nos. 8 and 9 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Nonparty 1 was liable to pay the insurance premium to the Plaintiff even though Nonparty 1 is the business owner of the instant workplace, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, the above assertion

5. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's main claims is just, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all of the plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claims on the ground of an additional illegal act in the court of first instance. The plaintiff's application for the change of the plaintiff's claim on March 18, 2016 which added the conjunctive claim for the nullification of the disposition to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall not be permitted.

Judges Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)