벌점부과처분취소
1. On January 2, 2014, the Defendant’s administrative disposition following defective construction (the imposition of penalty points) against the Plaintiffs shall be revoked.
2.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) is a constructor who was awarded a contract from the Defendant for the construction work of the disaster risk district (temporary flooded district) in 2011 (hereinafter “instant construction work”), and Plaintiff B is a construction engineer who is the head of the Plaintiff’s site.
B. On January 2, 2014, the Defendant constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant construction works requires supplementary construction by executing the main structural parts differently from design documents and relevant standards due to a raised construction, which is similar to the attached Form 1 with respect to the instant construction works, and accordingly, it constitutes a case where construction is required by the Plaintiff’s construction of the main structural parts differently from design documents and relevant standards, and Article 21-4 and Article 21-1(1) of the former Construction Technology Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11794, May 22, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 94, May 22, 2014;
Pursuant to the paragraph, the penalty points were imposed 3.0 points (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, 9, 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant alleged that the excavation method was applied by mistake in the analysis of the ground nature of the construction section of this case at the time of designing the design (hereinafter "public law of this case").
A) The Plaintiff, upon finding a normal cancer, did not accept the Plaintiff’s request for change of construction method, design change, etc., and as a result, there were several problems in the construction process of the instant construction project. As such, the principal liability lies in the Defendant, who is the ordering agent. In addition, the Defendant is C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) holding a patent for the instant construction project.
In addition, the plaintiff designated a subcontract to give a specific direction to C.