1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2003, the Plaintiff, a company running a cargo transport business, cargo transport brokerage business, etc., paid the industrial accident compensation insurance premium (hereinafter “industrial accident compensation insurance premium”) with the type of business covered by the industrial accident compensation insurance (insurance premium rate of 9/1,000) after having subscribed to the industrial accident compensation insurance, and filed a report on October 18, 2012 on the change of the type of business to a special cargo transport business (insurance premium rate of 71/1,000).

Accordingly, on December 31, 2012, the defendant changed the business type of the plaintiff into a special cargo transport business retroactively from February 7, 2010.

B. On May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on May 20, 2013, changing the Plaintiff’s business type from a special cargo transport business to a transport auxiliary service business. However, on June 18, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return the Plaintiff’s main business, which the Plaintiff is currently running, on the ground that it is a special cargo transport business (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 21, 2013, but was dismissed on December 17, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is concurrently engaged in the transportation incidental service business that collects a certain amount of commission from the land owner in return for mediating or arranging the transportation of cargo between the owner and the land owner and the special cargo transportation business that transports the cargo to the vehicle directly operated by the plaintiff.

However, the number of workers engaged mainly in the transportation ancillary service among the plaintiff's workers is more than the number of workers engaged mainly in the special cargo transportation business, and the sales from the transportation ancillary service among the plaintiff's sales are more than the sales from the special cargo transportation business. Therefore, the plaintiff's main business is not a special cargo transportation business.