Court: "'Special Employment' Delivery Riders to Bear Half of Industrial Accident Insurance Premiums... Not Discrimination"

A court ruling has upheld the legitimacy of requiring delivery riders, who are classified as special-type workers (teuksoohyeong geunro jongsaja, or teukgo), to bear half of their industrial accident compensation insurance premiums themselves.

According to the court on the 11th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 14 (Presiding Judge Lee Sang-hoon) recently ruled against plaintiffs including delivery rider A in a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the industrial accident compensation insurance premium imposition filed against the National Health Insurance Service.

Previously, from 2019 to 2020, the Service sent industrial accident insurance premium notices to the workplaces to which A and others belonged. The notices required both the workers and their respective employers to each pay half of the calculated industrial accident insurance premiums.

A and others filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing that the old Employment and Industrial Accident Insurance Premium Collection Act, which required only teukgo to bear half of the premium?unlike general workers who do not pay any?was an unfair discrimination. They also requested the court to refer the relevant provisions for a constitutional review.

Article 49-3, Paragraph 2 of the current Employment and Industrial Accident Insurance Premium Collection Act stipulates that teukgo and employers each bear half of the industrial accident insurance premiums. In contrast, employers bear the full amount for general workers.

The first-instance court rejected A’s claims, stating that it could not be seen as discrimination without reasonable grounds. The request for constitutional review was also dismissed.

The court stated, "The right to receive industrial accident insurance benefits is subject to legislative discretion considering social security and economic levels, and the Constitution does not specifically require equality regarding the burden of industrial accident insurance premiums under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act." It added, "Many countries overseas recognize the need to protect teukgo but differ in methods and extent."

Furthermore, the court emphasized, "Teukgo tend to have a high degree of exclusivity and wage dependency on employers and show weak signs of being independent business operators. However, they own equipment, raw materials, and work tools, and bear the risks of profit generation and loss themselves, showing similarities to employers rather than workers."

The court added, "Regarding teukgo, who were not recognized as workers and thus not protected by industrial accident insurance, the application of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act and its gradual expansion is underway. The alleged unfairness claimed by the plaintiffs should be addressed through phased legislation considering the national budget, finances, and overall social security levels, which is reasonable and appropriate."

A and others have appealed the first-instance ruling.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.