logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.09.06 2019구단6318
영업정지처분취소
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 corporation established on August 22, 2007 for the purpose of building construction business.

B. On July 3, 2017, the president of the Gyeonggi-do Association reviewed the details of the Plaintiff’s report on construction business registered to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff failed to meet the registration standards for construction business due to lack of construction engineers from 2015 to 2016.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant, upon receiving and examining materials from the Plaintiff, demanded that the standards for registration of construction business be satisfied with at least five construction engineers who work full-time. The Plaintiff failed to meet the standards for registration (it should not be confirmed the details of subscription to employment insurance) due to lack of one construction engineer from December 1, 2015 to August 17, 2016. In the case of construction engineer C, who asserted that the Plaintiff had worked for the Plaintiff from January 11, 2016, it cannot be deemed that the construction engineer C had worked for the other company, which is clearly required by the said registration standards, and the Defendant made a disposition of business suspension for the Plaintiff on December 6, 2018 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 83 Subparag. 3 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14015, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) and Article 79-2 Subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27751, Dec. 30, 2016; hereinafter the same) provide that the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that where the period of falling short of the registration standards due to death, disappearance, or retirement of construction engineers, etc. does not exceed 50 days, business suspension may not

C On January 11, 2016, he/she was employed by the plaintiff and acquired the national pension and health insurance status under the jurisdiction of the plaintiff on the same day, and was paid by the plaintiff on the same day, except that he/she was paid from the plaintiff.

arrow