The meaning of "where he neglects to pay the collection money" under Article 26 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

According to the provisions of Article 27 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 63 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the meaning of "when the Minister of Labor neglects to pay the amount to be collected" under Article 26 (1) of the same Act shall issue a demand note to urge the payment of the amount to be collected, such as the premium under Article 27 (1) of the same Act, and it is reasonable to interpret that the insured neglects to pay the amount to be collected even if the demand note was served by lawful means other than by service by publication

Articles 26(1) and 27 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and Article 63(2)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Anti-monthly Industry Cooperatives

The head of the Ansan Regional Labor Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu7404 delivered on June 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the provisions of Article 26 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in case where the insured neglects to pay the premium and other dues under this Act, the Minister of Labor collects the amount of 100 won from the day following the expiration date of the payment period to the day preceding the day before the full payment or settlement date of the premium and other dues under this Act, except as provided by the Presidential Decree, since the Minister of Labor collects the amount of arrears calculated by the number of days from the day following the expiration date of the payment period to the day before the expiration date of the payment period to the day before the settlement date of the premium and other dues under this Act, in case where the insured neglects to pay the premium, etc., he can collect the prescribed arrears, but the meaning of the "in case where he neglects to pay the premium, etc., when the payment of the premium," as stated in the above Article does not necessarily mean "in case where the payment period has

However, Article 27 (1) and (2) of the same Act provides that the Minister of Labor shall urge the payment of the premium and other dues under this Act by fixing a time limit and issue a demand note if he/she demands the payment of the premium, and Article 63 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that Article 26 (1) of the same Act provides that one of the cases where arrears are not collected shall be notified by public notice because the domicile, residence, place of business or office of the person liable for payment is unknown, and that in light of this, "when he/she neglects the payment of the amount to be collected" means "when the Minister of Labor issues a demand note demanding the payment of the amount to be collected under Article 27 (1) of the same Act, and it is reasonable for the Minister of Labor to interpret that the insured neglects the payment of the amount to be collected, regardless of the receipt of the demand note by public notice by public notice, and if this does not so, it is impossible to explain the reason for the existence of Article 63 (2) 4 of

Article 63(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that, one of the cases where arrears are not collected before the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 8857 of Feb. 13, 1978, except for the case of subparagraph 4, where the collection of arrears is not made in full by the designated deadline of the demand notice. In the case where the provision exists, there is no room for doubt in interpreting the meaning of "when the payment of the collection amount is neglected" as above. Although the above provision was deleted by Presidential Decree No. 8857 of Feb. 13, 197, it should be interpreted equally as long as subparagraph 4 still exists.

In this regard, the Minister of Labor can not collect arrears from the insured solely on the fact that the period for payment of insurance premiums, etc. under Article 26 (1) of the same Act has expired, and in order to collect arrears, he/she must make a demand under Article 27 of the same Act first. Thus, the disposition of imposing arrears, which the defendant imposed without the procedure of demand, in this case where the defendant did not peep the plaintiff, cannot be said to be unlawful.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the disposition imposing arrears of this case was unlawful on the ground that even if the insured did not pay the estimated premium or the final premium calculated under Article 23 (1), (2), or Article 25 (1), and (2) of the same Act even if the insured did not pay the estimated premium or the final premium calculated under Article 23 (1), (2), or Article 25 (1), and (2) of the same Act, the disposition imposing arrears of this case can not be imposed immediately, regardless of imposing additional dues on the insured, although the above determination by the court below is not appropriate, the above determination by the court below is just in its conclusion that the disposition imposing arrears of this case was unlawful on the premise that the arrears can be collected immediately due to the excess of the payment deadline of the above insurance premium.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)