Heung Heavy Construction Machinery Corporation

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

June 25, 2004

Busan District Court Decision 2003Guhap1609 Delivered on November 20, 2003

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of collecting indemnity amounting to KRW 6,785,710 (1,795,610 + 634,840 + 4,312,340 + 42,840 + 42,840) in total against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2002 is revoked.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Company is a corporation established on May 27, 1995 for the purpose of a non-moring construction business and whose main business is the installation, lease, driving, etc. of other workshops at the new construction site of high-rise buildings, such as apartment buildings.

B. As a truck driver belonging to the headquarters of the Plaintiff Company, Nonparty 1, who was in charge of transporting equipment, parts, etc. from each site in the warehouse of the headquarters, requested the Defendant to pay the insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Act”), such as temporary layoff benefits, after receiving occupational accidents on January 6, 2002.

C. As a result of examining the actual status of the purchase of industrial accident compensation insurance for the Plaintiff Company’s workplace (hereinafter “industrial accident insurance”), the Plaintiff Company purchased industrial accident insurance for each construction site from January 7, 1997 as an industrial accident insurance for each construction site, but it was confirmed that the construction head office was not an industrial accident insurance for each construction site.

D. Accordingly, from July 1, 200 to July 1, 200, when the industrial accident insurance coverage level has been extended to not less than one full-time employee at the previous five or more employment businesses (unless it is difficult to do so, the number of full-time employees belonging to the headquarters of the Plaintiff company) due to the amendment of the Act, the industrial accident insurance was established retroactively to the management and employees belonging to the headquarters of the Plaintiff company, and the non-party 1 pays the industrial accident insurance benefits, such as medical expenses and temporary disability compensation benefits, to the non-party 1 on June 5, 2002. On June 5, 200, the medical expenses of the non-party 1 on the ground that the non-party 6,785,710 won [the medical expenses of the non-party 1 paid to the non-party 1 on the ground that the non-party 2 was an accident during the period of neglecting the insurance coverage, the medical expenses of the non-party 1 on the ground that they were 6,7840.2.4.

[Identification Evidence] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence 2-4, the whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

(1) First, in the case of the Plaintiff Company, a person running a single construction business is not a separate business, but the head office and the construction site are not a separate business. However, as long as the Plaintiff Company purchased an industrial accident insurance policy based on the construction site, it shall be deemed that it was an industrial accident insurance even if it did not purchase the construction site separately from the construction site.

(2) Second, although the Plaintiff Company did not separately purchase an industrial accident insurance for the head office, the said accident is not treated as a disaster that occurred during the insured period, since the Plaintiff Company reported the total amount of personnel expenses for employees and field employees of the head office as the total wage constituting the basis for calculating the insurance premium at the time of reporting the final premium in 2000 and the estimated premium in 2001, and paid the insurance premium calculated and paid based on such report.

(3) Third, the non-party 1 is a truck engineer carrying necessary materials while leaving a warehouse at the site and its head office, and it cannot be said that the non-party 1 works within a risk range different from the construction site.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument

In a case where a company engages in different types of business as different types of business depending on different types of business, industrial accident insurance should be purchased at each business establishment unless they fall under a blanket application (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6866, Mar. 28, 2003). According to Article 9(2) of the Act, the business owner is the same person in order to be subject to a blanket application as one business establishment, and the period of each business is fixed, and the type of business as determined by the Minister of Labor pursuant to Article 63 of the Act should be included in the same business as determined by the Minister of Labor. However, since there is no evidence that the construction head office of the Plaintiff company and each construction site are recognized as one business site meeting the same requirements, the Plaintiff company cannot be deemed as being entitled to industrial accident insurance as a matter of course for construction of the head office after purchasing industrial accident insurance as an organic business as a whole.

Therefore, the above first argument of the plaintiff cannot be accepted.

(2) Judgment on the second argument

㈎ 건설업을 영위하는 사업주가 건설 본사에 대하여 분리하여 별도로 보험관계성립신고를 하지 아니하였더라도, 각 건설공사에 대한 동종사업 일괄적용승인을 받고 건설 본사도 일괄적용되는 사업에 포함된다고 잘못 생각하여 일괄하여 사업개시신고를 하였고, 재해발생 이전에 보고·납부한 개산보험료에 건설 본사에 대한 것이 포함되어 있다는 등의 사정이 있다면, 그 형식이야 여하간에 실질적으로 건설 본사에 관한 보험관계가 성립된 사실을 신고하였다고 볼 것이므로, 그 보험료의 차액을 정산하는 것은 별론으로 하더라도, 법 제72조 제1항 제1호 소정의 보험가입신고를 태만히 한 경우에 해당한다 하여 보험급여액의 일부를 징수하는 제재를 가할 수는 없다고 보아야 할 것이다( 대법원 1994.9.23. 선고 93누20207 판결 참조).

㈏ 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 원고 회사가 건설 본사에 대하여 별도로 산재보험에 가입하지는 않았으나, 각 건설공사현장에 대하여 1997. 1. 7.부터 건설 일괄 유기(유기)사업으로 산재보험에 가입한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 갑제1, 2호증, 갑제3호증의 1 내지 12의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고 회사는 이 사건 재해발생 이전인 2001. 3월경 피고에게 2000년도 확정보험료 및 2001년도 개산보험료 신고를 하면서 보험료 산정의 기초가 되는 임금총액을 609,396,980원으로 하여 보험료를 신고, 납부하였는데, 이는 원고 회사의 2000년도 재무제표(손익계산서, 공사원가명세서) 및 임금대장상의 건설 현장직원의 임금 합계 596,906,980원과 건설 본사직원의 임금 합계 39,890,000을 합한 635,796,980원에서 대표이사의 급여 26,400,000원을 뺀 금액과 일치하는 사실이 인정되는바, 그렇다면, 원고 회사는 건설 본사도 일괄적용되는 사업에 포함된다고 잘못 생각한 나머지 재해발생 이전에 건설 본사에 대한 보험료를 포함하여 개산보험료를 신고, 납부한 것으로 봄이 상당하다 할 것이다.

㈐ 이에 대하여 피고는, 원고 회사가 위 2000년도 확정보험료 및 2001년도 개산보험료 신고를 하면서 임금총액에 포함되어야 할 잡급인부 노임 90,945,000원과 외주가공비 중 임금해당분인 116,842,400원의 신고를 누락하였고, 그 결과 원고 회사가 신고한 임금총액은 건설현장의 임금총액에도 미치지 못하므로 건설 본사에 대한 보험료를 포함하여 신고하였다고 볼 수 없다는 취지의 주장을 하므로 살피건대, 이는 건설 현장에 대한 임금총액 중 일부의 신고를 누락한 것이 되어 그 누락분에 해당하는 보험료의 추가징수 및 가산금 징수를 할 수 있는 사유가 됨은 별론으로 하고, 이를 들어 원고 회사가 당초 신고한 보험료에 건설 본사에 대한 보험료가 포함되지 않은 것으로 볼 수는 없다 할 것이므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

㈐ 따라서 원고 회사가 건설 본사에 대하여 별도로 산재보험에 가입하지는 않았으나 건설 본사의 보험료를 포함하여 건설일괄 보험료를 신고, 납부한 이상 건설 본사에 대한 보험가입신고를 태만히 한 경우에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없다 할 것이므로, 원고가 이를 태만히 하였음을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 원고의 나머지 주장에 관하여 더 나아가 살필 필요 없이 이 점에서 위법하다 할 것이다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)