Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
An individual workplace business-type change decision as an administrative disposition
Supreme Court, Apr. 9, 2020, 2019Du61137 (judgment)
Case name: 사업종류변경처분등취소청구의소[사업주가 근로복지공단의 사업종류 변경결정의 취소를 구하는 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where it is unclear whether an act of an administrative agency is a 'disposition', how is that to be decided, and is the decision of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service changing the business type of an individual workplace a 'disposition' open to administrative litigation?
Holding
Where it is unclear whether an act of an administrative agency is a disposition, the question is to be answered normatively, giving serious weight to whether the counterparty, who has a major interest in choosing a remedy, could recognise and predict the act. Reading the content and structure of the statutes and rules, the Service's decision on the business type of an individual workplace is an exercise of public authority and therefore a disposition: the premium rate follows automatically once the business type is settled, the statutory scheme presupposes that the Service investigates and decides the business type itself, and the decision bears directly on the employer's rights and duties by raising the rate.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
근로복지공단이 사업주에 대하여 하는 ‘개별 사업장의 사업종류 변경결정’은 행정청이 행하는 구체적 사실에 관한 법집행으로서의 공권력의 행사인 ‘처분’에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
A 'decision to change the type of business of an individual place of business' made by the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service to an employer corresponds to a 'disposition,' being an exercise of public authority in the enforcement of specific facts conducted by an administrative agency.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 근로복지공단에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it concerns the defendant Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
행정청의 행위가 ‘처분’에 해당하는지가 불분명한 경우에는 그에 대한 불복방법 선택에 중대한 이해관계를 가지는 상대방의 인식가능성과 예측가능성을 중요하게 고려하여 규범적으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where it is unclear whether an act of an administrative agency corresponds to a 'disposition,' it must be determined normatively, giving important consideration to the perceptibility and predictability of the counterparty who has a significant interest in the choice of the method of appeal thereagainst.
Factors
- 행정청의 행위가 ‘처분’에 해당하는지가 불분명한 경우에는
- 그에 대한 불복방법 선택에 중대한 이해관계를 가지는 상대방의 인식가능성과 예측가능성을 중요하게 고려하여 규범적으로 판단하여야 한다
- 관련 규정들의 내용과 체계 등을 살펴보면
- 행정청이 행하는 구체적 사실에 관한 법집행으로서의 공권력의 행사인 ‘처분’에 해당한다
Unofficial English translation
• Where it is unclear whether an act of an administrative agency corresponds to a 'disposition,'
• it must be determined normatively, giving important consideration to the perceptibility and predictability of the counterparty who has a significant interest in the choice of the method of appeal thereagainst
• Looking at the content and system of the relevant provisions,
• it corresponds to a 'disposition,' being an exercise of public authority in the enforcement of specific facts conducted by an administrative agency
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2016두33537 판결(공2018하, 2254)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Du33537 decided October 25, 2018 (Gong 2018 Ha, 2254)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2016두33537 판결(공2018하, 2254)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How far must the Service's compliance with the disposition procedure go before the change decision becomes incontestable against the employer, so that its legality can no longer be raised in later premium litigation?
The remand judgment of the Busan High Court on the change decision will show how the Court expects this rule to work in practice. Any amendment to Article 2(1)(i) of the Administrative Litigation Act or to the Collection Act and its subordinate rules, or a later decision drawing the line between a litigation-type and a substantive disposition, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 3 (disposition), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 3 (Disposition): Primary “Reversed and remanded” vs Independent “Partly reversed and remanded”
The original order reverses only the part for the Service and remands it, so it can be read as a general reversal and also as a partial reversal.
원심판결 중 피고 근로복지공단에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How far must the Service's compliance with the disposition procedure go before the change decision becomes incontestable against the employer, so that its legality can no longer be raised in later premium litigation?” vs Independent “What substantive grounds would make the workplace's business-classification change unlawful?”
They differ because the primary asks about procedural compliance and incontestability in later premium litigation while the independent asks about substantive grounds for unlawfulness.
근로복지공단이 사업주에 대하여 하는 ‘개별 사업장의 사업종류 변경결정’은 행정청이 행하는 구체적 사실에 관한 법집행으로서의 공권력의 행사인 ‘처분’에 해당한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan High Court, in its judgment of 22 November 2019 (2018Nu23725), held that the change decision alone brought no direct change or disadvantage to the plaintiff's rights and duties, that a real disadvantage arose only when the National Health Insurance Service imposed the additional premiums, and that the plaintiff could obtain full relief by suing that Service. It therefore held that the change decision was not an administrative disposition and dismissed that part of the suit. It also found the workplace's business type to be 'wholesale and retail trade and consumer-goods repair' and granted the claim against the National Health Insurance Service.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law on what counts as a disposition in administrative litigation. The Service is the agency that makes the business-type decision and calculates the premium, while the National Health Insurance Service only bills and collects, and a final judgment annulling the change decision binds related agencies and leaves the later assessments without their legal and factual basis, so the dispute belongs against the Service. The notice served on the plaintiff itself recorded the content, reasons and legal basis of the decision and guided the party to administrative adjudication or litigation, so the Service's plea that there was no disposition breached the principle of good faith, and the old-law decisions the court below relied on are not apt after the Collection Act took effect on 31 December 2003.
Distinguishing conditions
- An act of an administrative agency whose character is clear, so that no ambiguity calls for the normative assessment based on the counterparty's recognition and prediction.
- A change decision where the Service did not substantially comply with the disposition procedure, so that the employer was not secured a defence and a remedy, and may still argue the illegality of that decision in later premium litigation.
- A business-type change decision under the old law, before the Collection Act was enacted and took effect on 31 December 2003 and the related provisions were reorganised.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the Service's internal Regulation on the Handling of Application and Assessment Work and the notice actually served on the employer, looking for prior notice, the opportunity to be heard, reasons and the sentence guiding the party to administrative adjudication or litigation, since the Court relied on each of those. Confirm which version of the Collection Act governed the decision, because the older decisions were held inapt after 31 December 2003. Also confirm that the defendant is the agency that made the change decision, and note that a final judgment annulling it would leave the later premium assessments without their basis.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 행정청의 행위가 ‘처분’에 해당하는지 불분명한 경우, 이를 판단하는 방법 [2] 근로복지공단이 사업주에 대하여 하는 ‘개별 사업장의 사업종류 변경결정’이 ‘처분’에 해당하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Method of determining whether an act of an administrative agency corresponds to a 'disposition' where this is unclear [2] Whether a 'decision to change the type of business of an individual place of business' made by the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service to an employer corresponds to a 'disposition' (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 행정청의 행위가 ‘처분’에 해당하는지가 불분명한 경우에는 그에 대한 불복방법 선택에 중대한 이해관계를 가지는 상대방의 인식가능성과 예측가능성을 중요하게 고려하여 규범적으로 판단하여야 한다. [2] 항고소송의 대상인 처분에 관한 법리에 비추어 고용보험 및 산업재해보상보험의 보험료징수 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘고용산재보험료징수법’이라 한다) 제11조 제1항, 제12조 제1항, 제13조 제5항, 제14조 제3항, 제16조의2, 제16조의6 제1항, 제16조의9 제2항, 제3항, 제19조의2, 고용보험 및 산업재해보상보험의 보험료징수 등에 관한 법률 시행령 제9조 제3호, 고용보험 및 산업재해보상보험의 보험료징수 등에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제12조 및 근로복지공단이 고용산재보험료징수법령 등에서 위임된 사항과 그 시행을 위하여 필요한 사항을 규정할 목적으로 제정한 ‘적용 및 부과업무 처리 규정’ 등 관련 규정들의 내용과 체계 등을 살펴보면, 근로복지공단이 사업주에 대하여 하는 ‘개별 사업장의 사업종류 변경결정’은 행정청이 행하는 구체적 사실에 관한 법집행으로서의 공권력의 행사인 ‘처분’에 해당한다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 근로복지공단에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it concerns the defendant Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 행정소송법 제2조 제1항 제1호 [2] 행정소송법 제2조 제1항 제1호, 고용보험 및 산업재해보상보험의 보험료징수 등에 관한 법률 제11조 제1항, 제12조 제1항, 제13조 제5항, 제14조 제3항, 제16조의2, 제16조의6 제1항, 제16조의9 제2항, 제3항, 제19조의2, 고용보험 및 산업재해보상보험의 보험료징수 등에 관한 법률 시행령 제9조 제3호, 고용보험 및 산업재해보상보험의 보험료징수 등에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제12조
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger