logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.10.15 2019구단50578
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity with the objective of the joint marketing processing and sales business, housing construction supply, sale and construction business, etc.

B. On March 14, 2016, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) as the contractor for the construction of the apartment building B in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si entered into a contract with the Plaintiff under which the Plaintiff prepared a “purchase contract” and purchased the floor board from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”). Around March 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E managing D to take charge of the construction of the floor of the said apartment (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. On October 24, 2018, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 17,427,00 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 82(2)3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry that concluding the instant 1 and 2 contracts violated the prohibition provision on sub-subcontracts.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] / 【No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 12, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Non-existence of the grounds for disposition ① The Plaintiff and C concluded a purchase contract (the instant 1 contract) with the Plaintiff, but not a subcontract for construction works. Therefore, the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 16136, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter the same applies) is not the same.

(2) In addition, even if the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry applies to this case, the Plaintiff and E do not violate Article 29(3) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry because it is not a delegation contract (the conclusion of the contract of this case 2) but a subcontract contract between the Plaintiff and E is not a lump sum subcontract, and thus, it is not a violation of the above provision, and furthermore, it is a "other person" under Article 29(3) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

arrow