1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be the supplementary participation.

1. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance from 11 to 3 8 of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and from 1.3 of the pertinent part of the disposition, citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The plaintiffs are the construction machinery managers belonging to construction business according to the schedule of business type in 2014, as business operators who lease other workshops corresponding to construction machinery under the Construction Machinery Management Act, along with drivers at construction sites. According to the Korean Standard Industrial Classification (Notice No. 2007-53, Dec. 28, 2007) (Korea Standard Industrial Classification (Notice No. 2007-53, Dec. 28, 2007). 2) In accordance with Articles 4 and 19 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter "Employment Premium Collection Act"), the defendant has no authority to impose and collect industrial accident insurance premiums, etc.

3) If multiple contracts are made as a construction business, the business owner who bears industrial accident insurance premiums, etc. pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Industrial Accident Collection Act shall be deemed to be the business owner who bears the original contractor’s industrial accident insurance premiums, etc. As such, a constructor who is the main business of the Plaintiffs also has the same nature as the construction business executed by the contract, is obligated to pay industrial accident insurance premiums, etc. under the Industrial Accident Insurance Premium Collection Act. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have no obligation to pay industrial accident insurance premiums, etc. Therefore, even though the original contractor bears industrial accident insurance premiums, etc. against other pilots, it constitutes double imposition. (b) Furthermore, the same is as stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes attached to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. (1) Determination that the Defendant did not have the right to impose and collect industrial accident insurance premiums