meaning of "business for which accident compensation is conducted under the Seafarers' Act" under Article 3 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and whether a seafarer management business entrusted and entrusted with personnel management of seafarers by a shipowner constitutes such business (negative)

Article 2(1) of the Seafarers Act applies to a seafarer working on a specified ship and an owner of such a ship (Article 2(1) of the Seafarers Act); Article 2(1) of the Seafarers Act applies to a person employed to provide labor on board a ship for the purpose of receiving wages (Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Seafarers Act); Article 2(3) of the Seafarers Act applies to a person who employs a seafarer and pays wages to a seafarer regardless of the name of a captain, seafarer, shipowner, employee on board, manager, or charterer (Article 2(3) of the Seafarers Act); Article 85 or 98 of the Seafarers Act applies to a seafarer who suffers from an occupational accident (Article 85 or 98 of the Seafarers Act); Article 3(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as an exception business to the Seafarers Act, "business for which an accident compensation is made pursuant to the Seafarers Act" means that a person who owns a ship exceeding a certain scale prescribed by the Seafarers Act provides labor on board a ship to the ship and is entrusted with the above seafarer's work on behalf of the shipowner.

Articles 5 and 7 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 3(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 2(1) and (3), Article 3 subparag. 1, Articles 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, and 98 of the Seafarers Act

Suwon Shipping Co., Ltd.

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Busan High Court Decision 98Nu2980 delivered on December 24, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 2(1) of the Seafarers Act applies to a seafarer working on a specified ship and an owner of such a ship (Article 2(1) of the Seafarers Act); Article 2(1) of the Seafarers Act applies to a person employed to provide labor on board a ship for the purpose of receiving wages (Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Seafarers Act); Article 2(3) of the Seafarers Act applies to a shipowner in the Seafarers Act to a person who employs a seafarer and pays wages to a seafarer regardless of the name of a captain, seafarer, shipowner, employee on board, manager, charterer, etc. (Article 2(3) of the Seafarers Act); Article 85 or 98 of the Seafarers Act applies to a seafarer who suffers from an occupational accident (Article 85 or 98 of the Seafarers Act); Article 3(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as an exception business to the Seafarers Act, refers to a person who owns a ship more than a certain scale prescribed by the Seafarers Act to provide labor on board a ship and is entrusted with the above seafarer’s work on behalf of the shipowner.

Therefore, the court below determined that the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act does not apply to the plaintiff who runs a seafarer management business in the above purport, and rejected the plaintiff's claim as to the part of the insurance premium imposition disposition in the year 1995 to 1997, which the defendant recognized as lawful, and there is no violation of law as argued by the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)