logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.09.01 2016누36897
산업재해보상보험료징수처분취소청구의 소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who, at the request of a construction company, operates another workshop rental business that assists its owner and its driver to send a construction site to the construction site.

B. On December 31, 2013, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s business type as an “construction machinery management business” under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premium Rate by Type of Business (No. 2013-56, the Ministry of Employment and Labor Notice No. 2013-56, Dec. 31, 2013) and notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of KRW 235,928,090 in the industrial accident compensation insurance premium in the year 201 and 2012 (hereinafter “industrial accident compensation insurance”) for the Plaintiff on June 23, 2014 and July 21, 2014.

C. On December 15, 2014, the Defendant reduced the amount of KRW 38,771,470 out of the said KRW 235,928,090 on the ground that the performance rate was not applied to the Plaintiff’s industrial accident insurance premium in 2012.

The Defendant’s payment notice portion regarding KRW 197,156,620, remaining as the Defendant’s reduction disposition among the industrial accident insurance premium in 2011 and 2012 against the Plaintiff on June 23, 2014 and July 21, 2014, refers to the instant disposition.

(D) On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition, etc., but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on March 24, 2015. [In the absence of any dispute over grounds for recognition, each entry in A1 or 3 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be invalidated or revoked on the grounds as set forth below.

1) The Plaintiff constitutes a construction equipment operation business among the construction businesses. For the construction equipment operation business, the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter “Employment Insurance Premium Collection Act”).

Article 16-2 (2) and Article 19-2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

arrow