시정명령 등 취소 청구의 소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff is the principal contractor who manufactures the Plaintiff’s ship and entrusted interest company, which is the Plaintiff’s intra-company repair business entity (hereinafter “interest company”) with the work of pre-ship towering and towering during the vessel block assembly.
He is the subcontractor who was entrusted with the above work by the Plaintiff from January 2008.
As of August 10, 2011, the Defendant issued a corrective order, payment order, and penalty surcharge in attached Form 1, on the ground that “the Plaintiff, from October 10, 2009 to March 2010, at a uniform rate without justifiable grounds, reduced the unit price and decided the subcontract price (hereinafter “instant subcontract price determination”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff, in relation to the entrustment of the manufacture of goods and the work of taking place in the ship to interested persons, determined the subcontract price at a uniform rate without justifiable grounds.”
(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case without dispute (hereinafter “instant disposition”) does not constitute “the case where the unit price is reduced at a uniform rate,” because it is difficult to determine the unit price according to the process in the case of the preceding and the subordinate operations of the preceding operations, which are the duties entrusted by the Plaintiff to the interested parties, and it does not constitute “the case where the unit price is reduced at a uniform rate.”
Even if the unit price was reduced at a uniform rate, the Plaintiff is deemed to have reduced the unit price by reflecting the decline of the unit price over the entire period of the shipbuilding industry, so there is “justifiable reason” in the unit price reduction.
Even if the subcontract price decision of this case constitutes an unfair subcontract price decision, it is an abuse of discretion to order the defendant to pay the difference between the amount based on the previous contractual unit price and the subcontract price of this case without making a specific decision on the amount of reasonable subcontract price.
In addition, the decision of the subcontract price of this case is the beginning of Joseon.