[Plaintiff, Appellee] Segi Geological Survey Co., Ltd. (세기지질조사주식회사), Attorney Park Sang-ki, Counsel for the Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellant] Chief of the Seoul Seobu Regional Office, Ministry of Labor (노동부 서울서부지방사무소장)
[Judgment Below]
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu867 rendered on April 8, 1985
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The proviso to Article 4 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) provides that businesses designated by Presidential Decree, taking into account the degree of risk, scale, and place of business, shall be excluded from the application of the same Act. Pursuant thereto, Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 1 through 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (같은법시행령) (Subparagraphs 1 through 5 prior to the amendment of August 6, 1983) designate the types of businesses so excluded. Meanwhile, Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the same Enforcement Decree, newly established and promulgated and enforced on August 6, 1983, provides that, with respect to the scope of businesses set forth in Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 1 through 4 and Subparagraphs 6 through 8, except where the Decree makes special provision, the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table (한국표준산업분류표) publicly notified by the Minister of the Economic Planning Board (경제기획원장관) shall govern. Accordingly, in determining the scope of businesses excluded from the application of the same Act, prior to the entry into force of Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the same Enforcement Decree on August 6, 1983, whether a given business falls within the scope of businesses excluded from the application of the same Act must be determined by reference to the purpose of the system excluding application of the same Act, in light of the content and nature of the business; and after its entry into force, except where the same Enforcement Decree makes special provision, the matter must be determined by reference to the above Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table, in which case as well, the content and nature of the business in question must first be ascertained in order to determine which category under the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table it falls under.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below premised its decision on the undisputed fact that the Defendant issued the insurance premium collection decision at issue in this case and gave notice thereof, on the ground that the drilling business which the Plaintiff performed under contracts awarded by non-party Korea Resources Corporation (대한광업진흥공사) and the Korea Institute of Energy and Resources (재단법인 한국동력자원연구소) from 1981 to 1984 was classified under "other mining" in the illustrative table of business types under the industrial accident insurance premium rate table publicly notified by the Minister of Labor pursuant to Article 21 of the same Act and Article 46 of the same Enforcement Decree, and was therefore a business subject to the application of the same Act. The court below then, upon comprehensive consideration of the evidence adduced, found as follows: the content of the above drilling business contracted by the Plaintiff consists of drilling from the surface at a location designated by the contracting party down to a designated underground depth (ordinarily between 100 meters and 1,200 meters underground), and extracting a rock core that is continuous and unbroken from the surface to the designated depth; the purpose of such drilling is to analyze the extracted rock core in order to survey the geology, not to mine minerals; the drilling area is not limited to areas where mining rights have been established; and as for the drilling method, a rotary drilling machine is fixed on the ground, and a bit made of industrial diamond capable of boring through rock is attached to the end of the drilling machine, which is rotated while pressure is applied so that the bit bores through the rock, thereby extracting a cylindrical rock core with a diameter of 1 to 4 inches; and this is distinguished from mineral drilling business conducted by a holder of mining rights within an area where mining rights have been established, for the purpose of ascertaining the direction, depth, extent, and grade of an ore vein, etc., in order to determine whether and how to proceed with excavation for mining. In light of the purpose, content, area, and method of the above drilling business conducted by the Plaintiff, the court below held that this constitutes a kind of service business or social service business rather than the mineral drilling business classified under "other mining" in the illustrative table of business types under the above industrial accident insurance premium rate table, and thus falls within the businesses excluded from the application of the same Act as prescribed under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 or Subparagraph 4 of the same Enforcement Decree (Subparagraph 2 of Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act prior to the amendment of August 6, 1983), and accordingly held that the disposition imposing the insurance premium at issue in this case, made on the premise that the Plaintiff's drilling business constituted mining, was unlawful.
Upon examination of the record, the above factual findings of the court below are sufficiently acceptable, and there is no illegality therein in violation of the rules of evidence as argued in the grounds of appeal. Furthermore, the determination premised on the above findings of fact, although not stated in detail, appears to accord with the purport set forth above, and is therefore justified; there is no illegality therein due to a misunderstanding of the legal principles as argued in the grounds of appeal. The argument that, prior to the establishment of Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the same Enforcement Decree on August 6, 1983, the scope of businesses prescribed under Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the same Enforcement Decree, which are excluded from the application of the same Act pursuant to the proviso to Article 4 of the same Act, must be determined based on the illustrative table of business types under the above industrial accident insurance premium rate table publicly notified by the Minister of Labor, is a groundless argument peculiar to the Appellant and cannot be adopted. The argument is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices involved.
Supreme Court Justice Kim Hyeong-gi (Presiding Justice), Jeong Tae-gyun, Lee Jeong-u, Shin Jeong-cheol