Geum Pung General Co., Ltd. (Attorney Go Jong-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of the Ulsan Regional Labor Office

December 7, 1994

1. The defendant's disposition of imposition of the vocational training contributions of KRW 100,412,470 (per 91,284,080, additional dues 9,128,390) against the plaintiff on April 12, 1993 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The defendant's imposition of 1 to 3, 5 and 6's total wages for 1 to 3, 1, 2, 1 to 2 Eul's 2, 3 Eul's 2, 4-1 to 3, 4-1, 5-1 to 6-9's 7, 90's 90's 90's 97's 90's 90's 196's 9's 90's 97's 90's 97's 90's 96's 90's 90's 97's 90's 196's 90's 9's 90's 196's 90's 196's 90's 90's 196's 9's 90's 90's 196's 196's 90's 9's 97's 9's 1'6's 9's 2's 1'6's 1'6's 1'6'

2. The plaintiff's assertion

As to this, the plaintiff company's (1) as a mid-term rental business operator under Article 2 (2) of the Mid-Term Rental Business Act should be classified as a book-to-door business in the category of occupation, and therefore, it is excluded from a business operator responsible for providing vocational training, etc. under Article 14 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Vocational Training. Thus, the plaintiff company's branch owner is not a person subject to the disposition imposing vocational training contributions. (2) The plaintiff company's branch owner is not only an independent business operator but also an employee of the plaintiff company. Thus, the disposition of this case where the sales of branch owner

3. Determination

Therefore, the above (1) of the plaintiff is not conceptually defined for the construction business under the Framework Act on Vocational Training, but middle term rental business is a machine that can be used for construction business (Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the mid term Management Act before replacing the Construction Machinery Management Act (Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) and a mid term rental business is a business that lends heavy term at the demand of others and requires permission of the Minister of Construction and Transportation (Article 2 subparagraph 2 and Article 14 of the midterm Management Act). The related field is closely connected with the construction of the construction, and the mid term rental business is also closely related to the construction of the construction business, and it is also necessary to develop and improve its ability by conducting vocational training (Article 1 of the Framework Act on Vocational Training). Therefore, it is not a construction business under the Framework Act on Vocational Training.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the mid-term rental business is not a construction business under the Framework Act on Vocational Training is groundless.

However, the plaintiff's assertion above (2) provides that the plaintiff company becomes the main owner of the business in the middle of the same base as the case of the plaintiff company. However, according to Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Vocational Training Act, the "worker" refers to a person who is employed by the business owner and who has an intention to work". In addition, Article 28 (1) of the Framework Act on Vocational Training provides that the employer shall not be a person employed by the plaintiff company. Article 24 (2) of the Framework Act on Vocational Training provides that the employer shall be liable to pay the vocational training contributions to the business owner provided for in Article 24 (2). Article 24 (2) of the same Act provides that "the scope of the business owner who shall conduct vocational training or vocational training-related business shall be the business owner who is above the standard prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 14 (1) of the Enforcement Decree provides that the business owner shall be within 0 years of total amount of 90,000 won for each of the following business owners, and it shall be determined that the amount of construction work records of the plaintiff is below 150 years or more.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the vocational training contribution imposition disposition against the plaintiff on April 12, 1993 is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

January 25, 1995

Judges Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Judge)