beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.10.30 2014고정2592

건설산업기본법위반

Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B 주식회사(이하 ‘범죄사실’란에서는 ‘피고인 회사’라고만 한다)는 주택건설 및 판매, 토목건축공사업을 목적으로 설립된 법인으로 2012. 9. 12. 주식회사 하나아이엔디로부터 부산 해운대구 D 아파트' 이하 '이 사건 아파트'라고 한다

(1) The construction work of the instant apartment building is to be subcontracted to a constructor who has registered the type of business corresponding to the contents of the construction work. Thus, in order to subcontract a straw house construction work among the contracted apartment construction work, the construction work of the instant apartment building should be subcontracted to a constructor who has registered the construction work of the reinforced concrete construction work. Nevertheless, on July 2013, the Defendant, a Chinese person, who has not registered the construction work of the reinforced concrete construction work, issued a subcontract for each floor of the instant apartment building construction work (the construction work of the 2nd to 28th floor of the instant apartment building) to E, a Chinese person, who has not registered the construction work of the reinforced concrete construction work of the instant apartment building (the construction work of the 2nd to 28th floor of the instant apartment building) by setting the construction cost of each floor as KRW 6 million (the contract was concluded orally).

From around that time to March 2014, E had an employee of China to perform the said mold construction work. From around that time, E had the said mold construction work executed on August 12, 2013 by being transferred KRW 27,16,230, Sept. 47, 2013; KRW 47,13,250; KRW 160 on October 44, 2013; KRW 46,918,060 on November 46, 2013; KRW 44,617,720 on December 10, 2013; KRW 691,60 on October 6, 601; KRW 600 on October 16, 2014; KRW 30 on September 14, 2014; and KRW 1363,30 on qualifications, etc.; and

2. The Defendant Company violated the limitation on the qualification of the Defendant, as described in paragraph (1), in relation to the Defendant’s business.