[Plaintiff, Appellee] Keosung Electric Co., Ltd., Litigation Representative Attorney Lee Jeong-woo
[Defendant, Appellant] Head of Gumi Regional Labor Office
[Judgment Below]
Daegu High Court Decision 88Gu903 dated November 22, 1989
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
[Reasoning]
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In determining which category of business the Plaintiff company's type of business falls under—whether it is electrical machinery and equipment manufacturing, or metal products manufacturing through metal processing—among the examples listed in the Table of Business Types under the Table of Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premium Rates announced by the Minister of Labor pursuant to Article 21 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (산업재해보상보험법) and Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it is necessary to comprehensively consider not only the business purpose and the registered type of business at the place of business, but also the actual content of the business and the form of work performed (see this Court's Decisions 86Nu518 dated December 9, 1986; and 87Nu1078 dated February 28, 1989).
The court below determined that the copper capillary tubes manufactured by the Plaintiff company and supplied to non-party companies Goldstar, Samsung, and Daewoo Co., Ltd. are manufactured according to the specifications requested by those non-party companies, through the manufacturing process as found by the court below, in accordance with their orders; and that since these tubes, once supplied to the said non-party companies, are used only as parts for the refrigerant circuits of air conditioners and refrigerators—that is, as parts of household electrical machinery and equipment—in light of such manufacturing process and the intended use of the product, the court below held that the Plaintiff company's manufacture and production of copper capillary tubes should be classified under "household electrical machinery and equipment parts manufacturing" among the examples listed in the Table of Business Types of the Table of Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Premium Rates announced by the Minister of Labor. This determination does not contain any violation of the rules of evidence or any error in the misapprehension of law as argued in the grounds of appeal.
Moreover, it is clear from the content of the judgment below that the court below classified the Plaintiff company's business type as "electrical machinery and equipment parts manufacturing" by taking into account, in addition to the above circumstances, the fact that the Plaintiff company's accident rate was low merely as a reference factor, and not solely on the ground that the accident rate was low. Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal is also without merit.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Defendant. This Judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Park Woo-dong (Presiding Justice), Lee Jae-seong, Yoon Young-cheol, Kim Yong-jun