[Plaintiff, Appellant] Hanyoung Engineering Co., Ltd., Counsel Yoo Byung-gap, Attorney-at-law
[Defendant, Appellee] Head of Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office
[Judgment Below] Daegu High Court Decision 89Gu214 rendered on April 25, 1990
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In order to determine which category, among the categories listed in the Illustrative Table of Business Types for the Application of Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Rates publicly notified by the Minister of Labor, a company's type of business falls under, not only the license or registered type of business of the relevant workplace but also the actual content of the business and the form of work must be comprehensively considered. Where two or more types of business are carried on together, it must first be determined which business is of greater weight in terms of the number of workers and total amount of wages, etc., before the applicable category is determined. (See this Court's Decisions 86Nu518 rendered on December 9, 1986; 87Nu1078 rendered on February 28, 1989; 90Nu28 rendered on May 11, 1990, etc.)
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after specifically finding, as stated in its judgment, the content of the business activities carried on by the Plaintiff company since its incorporation was registered on October 13, 1984, in particular the content of its business activities in 1987 and 1988, which are the periods subject to the imposition of the industrial accident compensation insurance premiums at issue in this case, held that the Plaintiff company's type of business falls under "mechanical facility construction" (for the year 1987) or "general construction work" (for the year 1988) among the construction business categories publicly notified by the Minister of Labor, and rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the Plaintiff company's type of business constitutes manufacturing business. Upon comparing the reasoning of the judgment below with the record, the fact-finding and legal determination of the court below can be affirmed, and it cannot be said that the judgment below is unlawful for misapprehension of the rules of evidence resulting in a mistake of fact, or for misapprehension of the law, as argued in the grounds of appeal. All of the grounds of appeal are without merit and cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. The opinions of the Justices participating are unanimous, and it is so ordered as stated in the Order.
Justice Kim Yong-jun (Presiding Justice), Park Woo-dong, Lee Jae-sung, Yoon Young-cheol