과징금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 11, 2013, the Plaintiff, a company running a mechanical facility construction business, a new and renewable energy business, was selected as a successful bidder of the installation works of the library office in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 198-14, Suwon-si, Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was ordered by the Incheon Local Government Procurement Service (hereinafter “instant construction works”), and entered into a contract of KRW 186,164,000 of the total construction amount as to the instant construction works between Suwon-si and Suwon-si, the contracting party.
B. In the process of performing the instant construction, the Plaintiff subcontracted to the specialized company of the relevant construction in KRW 121,00,000, the part of the bowling construction, which accounts for about 65% of the total construction amount.
Accordingly, on December 9, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty of KRW 10,69,000 on the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 82(2)2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the provision on direct construction under Article 28-2(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and did not directly perform bowling and painting construction works equivalent to at least 50% of the instant construction cost.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s 1 to 3 evidence, Eul’s 1 to 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was entirely unaware of the fact that at least 50% of the construction cost at the time when the Plaintiff was awarded the contract for the instant construction work, and was not aware of it, and the Plaintiff was unable to directly perform the relevant construction work because it was not registered. Therefore, in order to complete the instant construction work, the Plaintiff violated the provision on direct construction under Article 28-2(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not have to subcontract the instant construction work to another construction business; and (b) the instant construction work was not completed.
Even if it is not justified, there should be justifiable grounds for it.
Therefore, it is true.