logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.03.29 2015구합21832
건설업등록말소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a construction company that registered the construction business on February 18, 2005.

B. On September 29, 201, the Plaintiff filed a periodic report, and the Defendant rendered a disposition of the suspension of business (from October 15 to January 14, 2012) against the Plaintiff on October 15, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s shortage of capital.

(hereinafter referred to as "first disposition"). (c)

In order to supplement the shortage of capital, the Plaintiff received a report on the examination of financial management status that the capital standard constitutes “qualified” from the GMM Co., Ltd., and submitted it to the Defendant on February 14, 2013.

After the end of the periodic reporting deadline, the Plaintiff reported matters concerning the registration standard of construction business on December 1, 2014.

E. On June 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to cancel the Plaintiff’s construction business registration as of July 20, 2015 by applying Article 83 subparag. 3-3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff was subject to an administrative disposition that falls short of capital among the criteria for registration within the last three years, but again fell short of capital.”

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(ii) [Grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 10, Eul evidence 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply);

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Article 83(1)3-3 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 12580, May 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) (hereinafter “instant provision”) which is the basis for the instant disposition by the Plaintiff’s assertion, provides that the registration of construction business shall be cancelled in cases where the construction business falls short of the same registration standard within three years after the disposition of business suspension under Article 10 and falls short of the same registration standard.

However, the instant provision was amended on June 1, 2012 and enforced on December 2, 2012, and thus, it was subject to a disposition of business suspension after the enforcement of the amended Act.

arrow