「헌법재판소법」제68조 제2항 헌법소원심판의 요건과 산재보험료율 결정통지의 처분성 - 헌재 2020. 5. 27. 2019헌바139 -

Abstract

In an adjudication on a constitutional complaint under Article 68(2) of the Constitutional Court Act, the Constitutional Court decides a case on the merits in case of dismissal or rejection of a motion for a decision on a request for an adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes. And the Constitutional Court, considering the decision of the ordinary court in charge of the case with respect to a prerequisite for judgment, dismisses a petition for an adjudication on a constitutional complaint or decides a case on the merits based on findings from its own review. The Busan District Court, the ordinary court, dismissed the motion for a decision on a request for an adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes in that the determination of an industrial accident insurance premium rate by the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service was not subject to the revocation action. However, the Constitutional Court rendered its decision on the merits without enunciating grounds of opinion with regard to the prerequisite for judgment. The determination of an industrial accident insurance premium rate plays a fundamental role in the process of imposing and collecting industrial accident insurance premiums. According to the Supreme Court of Korea, the determination of a type of business which forms the basis of the determination of an industrial accident insurance premium rate is subject to the revocation action. Furthermore, the Seoul High Court recently ruled that the refusal of applying an experience rating plan be subject to the revocation action. Moreover, in 2013, the Supreme Court of Korea decided a case on a refusal of applying an experience rating plan on the merits, assuming it should be subject to the revocation action. Therefore, it should seem reasonable that the determination of an industrial accident insurance premium rate applying an experience rating plan is subject to the revocation action. To conclude, the decision of the Constitutional Court would appear to be reasonable in its conclusion, though it provided no reason at all in regard to the prerequisite.