[1] Nature of collecting insurance premium under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (=administrative disposition)

[2] Whether the public notice of the Ministry of Labor, which provides the labor ratio that serves as the basis for calculating insurance premiums upon delegation by the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, uses the concept of "total construction amount" without the mother law, and whether it goes beyond the delegation of the mother law to the extent that it does not distinguish the original contractor and subcontractor

[1] Articles 73(1) and 74(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 5881 of Feb. 8, 199) / [2] Articles 62, 65 and 67 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 5881 of Feb. 8, 199)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Du6201 decided Mar. 29, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 623)

Law Firm Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Taedong, Attorney Park Don-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1 other than the Republic of Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na64042, 64059 decided April 7, 2006

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 73(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) provides for the procedure of demanding the payment of premiums, etc., and Article 74(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that if a person who received the said demand fails to pay premiums, etc. within the specified period, he/she may collect them according to the example of disposition on default of national taxes with the approval of the Minister of Labor. As such, collecting premiums by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the insurance premium imposition disposition in this case is an administrative act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of the imposition of insurance premium as alleged in the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 65(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4826, Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 5881, Feb. 8, 1999; hereinafter “former Industrial Accident Compensation Act”) provides that with respect to the report and payment of the estimated premium, Article 67(1) provides that the report, payment and settlement of the final premium shall be made, respectively, and Article 62(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “The premium shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the total wage amount of the business operated by the insured by the premium rate applicable to the same business as that of the total wage amount of the business operated by the insured.” Article 62(2) provides that “In cases where it is difficult to determine the presumed amount of the total wage or the total wage amount under the provisions of Articles 65(1) and 67(1) of the same Act, if it is difficult to determine the presumed amount of the total wage or the total wage amount, it is difficult to determine the ratio of the final premium and the labor ratio.

Meanwhile, Article 195-46 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Labor on December 27, 1995, Article 1996-52 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Labor on December 30, 1996, and Article 1997-59 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Labor on December 30, 1997 (hereinafter “each notice of this case”) provides that “If it is difficult to determine the wages to be the basis for calculating the estimated premium and the final premium under Articles 65(1) and 67(1) of the former Industrial Accident Act, the labor ratio applicable to cases where it is difficult to determine the wages to be the basis for calculating the premium, shall be determined according to the following provisions of Article 62(2) of the former Industrial Accident Act, and the labor ratio for each type of construction work shall be determined according to the total cost of construction works:

Although each notice of this case used the concept of "total amount of construction work" that is not prescribed by the mother law, and it is difficult to calculate the total amount of construction work by adding the total amount of wages to the subcontractor, as long as it is difficult to calculate the amount of wages for subcontracting construction work, to determine the total amount of wages, according to the labor ratio determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Labor, in light of the purpose of the system that makes it difficult to determine the total amount of wages, which serves as the basis for calculating the final premium for each insurance year, the concept of "total amount of construction work" can be interpreted and applied in the same sense as "amount of construction work in the pertinent insurance year". The mother law does not specify the difference between the labor ratio to the original contractor and the labor ratio to the subcontractor, and even if the method of calculating the actual amount of wages paid for the original contractor would be more accurate than the method of calculating the amount of wages by multiplying the construction work cost, it is difficult to calculate the total amount of wages directly operated labor cost and external labor cost, and it is difficult to determine the total amount of wages.

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that each notice of this case is not beyond the delegation scope of the parent law, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground

3. As to the third ground for appeal

As examined in the ground of appeal No. 2, unless each notice of this case is unlawful, the argument in the ground of appeal No. 3, which is premised on the illegality beyond the scope of delegation of the parent law, is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)