beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.01.16 2018고단597

건축법위반등

Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is an architect who is in charge of the construction design and supervision of neighborhood living facilities of three stories above the land located in Jeju-si, and the total floor area of 487.223 square meters above the land located in Jeju-si. A.

A project supervisor who violates the Building Act shall record and maintain a supervision log, and shall prepare an interim report on supervision and submit it to the project owner, if the progress of the project differs from the Jindo prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Since the construction work in this case has been completed on November 29, 2016, an interim supervision report thereon shall be prepared and submitted to the owner.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not prepare an interim report on supervision and submit it to the owner without justifiable grounds despite being required to submit an interim supervision report by the owner of the building around July 2017.

(b) Any certified architect who violates the Certified Architects Act shall be prohibited from giving or receiving money or goods in connection with the performance of certified architect services;

Nevertheless, on August 9, 2017, the Defendant unfairly demanded the owner of the building to pay KRW 40 million to the owner of the building who is not applicable to this building site under the pretext of permanent supervision expenses not applicable to this building site.

2. The Defendant asserts that: (a) the failure to submit an interim report on supervision to the project owner as stated in the facts charged above is true; (b) the request for submission was not made by the project owner; and (c) the Defendant asserted that there was a justifiable reason for non-submission; and (d) the Defendant demanded the project owner to pay KRW 40 million as stated in the facts charged, but it is not a demand for unfair money and valuables, since the Defendant’s demand during

The following facts and circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined in this case.

(1) The Defendant is the mother of C project owner D, but in substance.

참조조문