1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of adding or adding the corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and adding the judgment as referred to in paragraph 2, and therefore, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

On October 26, 2018, after the closure of pleadings at the trial, the Plaintiff corrected the issue on October 26, 2018 as “other automobile parts manufacturing business and secondary refinings at Aluminium,” as “other automobile parts manufacturing business and Aluminium 2 refinings at Aluminium.”

"in addition".

The 6th parallel 4 to 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 3th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 1

(1) On October 26, 2018, the Plaintiff, as a stock company established with Aluminium as its business purpose, is the secondary refining of Aluminium based on the business registration certificate prior to the correction.

On July 1, 1988, the Plaintiff produced Aluminium, etc. from around 2002, the Plaintiff manufactured Aluminium, etc. used for automobile air conditioners, home-only air conditioners, etc.

The following parts shall be added between the 8th parallels and 6th parallels:

(7) E Co., Ltd., which produces and supplies “H” parts for automobile accident compensation insurance, is subject to the industrial accident compensation insurance business type as “automobile parts manufacturing business.”

However, the circumstances described in the above paragraphs (1) through (5) above, and the plaintiff has also produced Aluminium (Pib) as well as Aluminium aluminium as parts of Aluminium dedicated air conditioners, while there is no evidence to prove that E manufactures products for other purposes than automobile parts. Even if E produces products for other purposes, the type of business for E is binding on the defendant even if E manufactures products for other purposes than automobile parts.