1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The industrial accident compensation insurance relationship that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff on April 28, 2017.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ① the instant product is used as a part of an automobile, and is not reprocessed separately after the Plaintiff’s supply; ② the entire quantity of the instant product produced by the Plaintiff is supplied to the manufacturer of automobile parts; ③ the instant product ought to be classified as automobile parts even according to the Defendant’s “standards for Determination of Types of Automobile-Only Business”; ④ According to the business type table publicly notified by the Minister of Employment and Labor in 2017, the category of “218 non-metallic mineral products and metal products or metal processing business” is classified as “the classification of the instant product into the pertinent business type if it is classified as the manufacturing business of other business types.” However, the instant product manufacturing business clearly constitutes “the business of manufacturing parts and accessories of various transportation machinery and tools other than aircraft” in the context of “27 transportation machinery and tools manufacturing business”; ⑤ The Plaintiff’s average rate for the last seven years falls under the manufacturing business rather than the manufacturing business of non-metallic mineral products and metal products or industrial accident insurance premium rates of non-metallic products or metal products; and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant product is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.