[1] Requirements for an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation

[2] In a case where: (a) the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, upon receiving an application for medical care benefits filed by a person who suffered occupational accidents, deemed the business owner as a stock company B and notified the fact of approval for medical care; and (b) Company B filed an application for change with the business owner claiming that he/she is not his/her own employee; (c) the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation notified the

[1] In order for an administrative agency’s rejection of a citizen’s petition to constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the administrative agency should have the right to request a citizen’s action in accordance with laws and regulations or sound reasoning. In a case where an administrative agency does not accept a citizen’s petition without such right, the rejection cannot be deemed to have affected the applicant’s right or legal interest, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition

[2] In a case where: (a) the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service notified the business owner as Eul corporation of the approval of medical care in relation to the application for medical care benefits filed by Gap who suffered occupational accident; (b) the company Eul filed an application for change of the business owner by asserting that Eul is not his/her own employee; (c) the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service notified Eul of the rejection, the case holding that the above notification does not constitute an administrative disposition, on the ground that the relevant statutes, such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Employment Insurance Act, and the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums for Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance, do not provide for the employer to make an application for change of the business owner on the ground that the business owner is not a third party; and (d) the right to apply for change of the business owner and the worker who is the insured in industrial accident compensation insurance are determined by the substance of the relevant fact, and it cannot be deemed that the right to apply for change of the business owner is recognized pursuant to the decision of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, even if the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service refused the application

[1] Article 1 (Administrative Disposition) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 5 (3), Article 7 (2), Article 11, Article 15 (2), and Article 26 (1) 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11626 Decided April 15, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 756), Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1104 Decided April 26, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2012Du22966 Decided July 10, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 1596)

B&S Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pulp, Attorneys Seo-cheon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu47268 decided December 3, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order that an administrative agency’s refusal of a citizen’s application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the administrative agency should have the right to demand a citizen’s action in accordance with the relevant law or sound reasoning. However, in a case where an administrative agency does not accept a citizen’s application without such right, it cannot be deemed that such refusal affects the applicant’s right or legal interest, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du11626, Apr. 15, 2005; 2012Du2966, Jul. 10, 2014).

2. A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Defendant issued a disposition of approval for medical care regarding the application for medical care benefits by the Nonparty who suffered occupational accidents, and notified the Plaintiff of approval for medical care by deeming the business owner as the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the Nonparty was not his/her employee, and filed the instant application seeking change of the business owner, but the Defendant notified the Defendant of the rejection.

B. First, relevant statutes, such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter “Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act”) do not provide for the employer to apply for the change of the employer on the ground that the employer is not the employer himself/herself but a third party with respect to occupational accidents already occurred, as seen in the instant application. Therefore, such application cannot be deemed to be recognized under the relevant laws

① Furthermore, according to Article 6 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Articles 5(3) and 7 subparag. 2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in principle, an employer of all businesses or places of business who employs workers naturally becomes an insured of industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “industrial accident insurance”), and whether an employer who is an insured worker and a worker who is entitled to receive insurance benefits in industrial accident insurance are determined by the substance of the relevant fact (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du2201, Feb. 24, 199), rather than an insured worker by the Defendant’s decision (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du2201, Feb. 24, 199). ② The Defendant specified his/her employer in the process of examining the application for medical care, but this is merely an internal decision made at the middle stage of determining whether to approve medical care. Accordingly, such determination itself does not cause direct change in the business owner’s specific rights and obligations, ③ In light of the fact that the industrial accident insurance premium collection right can only be asserted in the case of an industrial accident insurance premium collection report.

Therefore, even if the defendant rejected such an application, it does not affect the plaintiff's rights or legal interests. Therefore, the notification of this case does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

C. In the same purport, the court below's determination that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful on the grounds that the disposition of this case is not recognized, is just and acceptable, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the rejection disposition subject to appeal, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)