시정명령취소
1. The Defendant’s corrective order stated in the attached Form, which was issued to the Plaintiff on July 28, 2015, shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Facts recognized;
A. The status of the Plaintiff, etc. is a small and medium entrepreneur who is engaged in manufacturing industrial machinery, etc. and entrusts C (D representative, hereinafter “D”) with assembly and installation, etc. of automobile machinery. Thus, it constitutes a principal contractor. D is a person entrusted with the manufacture of this case by the Plaintiff, and therefore constitutes a subcontractor.
The instant subcontract was concluded between F Co., Ltd. and D on July 17, 2013 and F Co., Ltd., and F Co., Ltd. constitutes a principal contractor on the grounds that the annual sales or the number of regular employees in the business year immediately before the conclusion of the subcontract exceeds D.
F Co., Ltd. merged with the Plaintiff on October 1, 2014, and thus, all rights and obligations were comprehensively succeeded to the Plaintiff. The Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff.
All of the plaintiffs shall be referred to as "the plaintiff" regardless of whether before and after the merger.
B. Contents 1 of the subcontract transaction in this case) The Plaintiff is Hyundai Flus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Molus”).
(E) “E” contracted and partially entrusted D on July 17, 2013 (hereinafter “instant subcontract transaction”).
) The contents of the instant subcontract were to install and run the Plaintiff’s facilities received from the Plaintiff’s factory by relocating them to the Hyundai Mospo Factory. However, on October 14, 2013, the instant subcontract was terminated upon the receipt of human resources invested by D at the work site. 2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and D agreed to make advance payment (30% at the time of concluding the contract), the first intermediate payment (50%) the second intermediate payment (10% until September 9, 2013) and the remainder (10% after the completion of the final inspection).
C. The Defendant’s disposition 1) even though the Plaintiff received an object from D on August 28, 2013 as indicated in the following table, the amount of KRW 10,780,000 for the subcontract consideration (the second intermediate payment).