1. The defendant 2018

5. 22. The Plaintiff’s filing date of the disposition imposing the above industrial accident compensation insurance fees under the written complaint on May 18, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff’s report on the establishment of industrial accident compensation insurance, is a landscape architecture corporation located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On December 30, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case 284,828 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”) and reported the industrial accident compensation insurance formation (hereinafter “industrial accident compensation insurance”) by separating the land of this case from the Plaintiff’s head office.

(A) The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) applied the type of industrial accident insurance business at the instant place of business from July 4, 2015 to the forest management business (one of the forestry).

B. On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Intervenor for the change of the type of industrial accident insurance business at the instant workplace into one of the crop production business (i.e., the Plaintiff’s application for change of the type of industrial accident insurance business). A written confirmation that the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the Intervenor at that time stated, stating, “The Intervenor included cryp trees, booms, worships, clothes, stoves, landscape trees, etc. in the instant workplace (the instant land and its neighboring land), and there is no negligence due to damage, etc. to the management room, trees, wild boars, and pigs.” (ii) On September 7, 2017, the Intervenor’s employee in charge of the Intervenor, on the following grounds: “The instant workplace is classified into forests and forests, and its category consists of forests, and thus it cannot be deemed that the instant plant cannot be seen as agriculture requirements under the Industrial Accident Insurance Type Table; the Plaintiff’s business cannot verify the status of planting trees out of the instant plant; the type and sales of the instant plant cannot be deemed as an ordinary type of business.”

Accordingly, the intervenor on September 8, 2017 is the plaintiff.