[Plaintiff, Appellee] Kim Bang-bu
[Defendant, Appellant] Head of the Jeju Regional Office, Ministry of Labor
[Original Judgment] Gwangju High Court, Judgment of June 26, 1986, Case No. 85Gu101
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In determining whether a business is one to which the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) applies, not only the license or registered type of business of the workplace but also the actual content of the business and the form of work performed must be comprehensively considered. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on the evidence cited, that the Plaintiff obtained a license for the window and door construction business from the Governor of Jeju Province on June 8, 1983, and has been operating a window and door construction business under the trade name "Jechang Sanupsa" at his address, employing a total of 14 employees consisting of 4 in administrative work, 3 in the window and door manufacturing division, and 7 in the window and door installation division.
Examining the content of the Plaintiff's business and the form of work through the record, the Plaintiff first receives a subcontract for a specific window and door construction project from the main contractor of the building construction, and in the process of executing this work, purchases "Lucky Hi-Sash," a plastic product manufactured elsewhere, and using this as raw material, cuts or joins it to sizes suitable for the specific building to manufacture window frames, installs these in the building using cement and adhesives, then manufactures window sashes to fit the frames through the same process, attaches them to the frames, and thereafter installs locking devices and the like, thereby completing the contracted construction. As for the number of employees, the Plaintiff employs approximately 14 persons in total—4 in administrative work, 3 in the window and door manufacturing division, and 7 in the window and door installation division—such that only 3 or 4 out of the total number of employees are engaged in the manufacture of windows and doors. Based on these findings, even though the type of business is listed on the Plaintiff's business registration certificate as "manufacture of plastic products and construction," for purposes of the application of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Plaintiff should be regarded as a window and door construction business operator whose main business is window and door construction, which is a type of specialty construction business under Article 5 of the Construction Business Act (건설업법) and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The Plaintiff's above form of business (construction work) cannot be deemed to fall under "construction directly performed by a manufacturer, in which goods manufactured by the manufacturer itself constitute the main component," as provided in Article 5, Item 5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premium Rate Notification (Ministry of Labor Notification No. 84-34), which governs cases where a business is to be absorbed into and treated as a manufacturing business, and Article 8 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Application Standards, a Ministry of Labor internal rule (예규). Therefore, the Defendant's disposition imposing the industrial accident insurance premiums at issue in this case, on the ground that the Plaintiff's business was a chemical products manufacturing business, is unlawful in its entirety. The judgment below, which reached the same conclusion, is justified, and there is no error of law, as argued in the grounds of appeal, resulting from a misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the application of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The argument is without merit.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices involved.
Justice Yoon Il-yeong (Presiding Justice), Lee Myeong-hee, Choi Jae-ho, Hwang Seon-dang