logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.06.28 2018구합102187
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 47,553,150 against the Plaintiff on January 15, 2018 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant announced the announcement of the construction of C’s facility reinforcement works in Boan-si B (hereinafter “instant construction works”), and the Plaintiff was awarded the said tender.

Accordingly, on August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works between Chungcheongnam-do and Chungcheongnam-do to receive KRW 951,063,00 (hereinafter “original contract amount”).

B. Thereafter, on September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff subcontracted part of the start-up work and appurtenant work among the instant construction to CCC Marine Development Co., Ltd. at KRW 585,123,00 in a subcontract price.

(hereinafter “instant subcontract amount”). On the other hand, the principal construction cost during the subcontracted landing project is KRW 331,338,950.

(hereinafter referred to as the “principal construction cost of this case”).

On January 15, 2018, the Defendant subcontracted to the Plaintiff all or part of the construction works that the Plaintiff contracted to the Plaintiff and violated Article 29(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. This was imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 47,553,150 equivalent to the amount calculated by multiplying the rate of penalty surcharge prescribed in attached Table 3 by 5% under Article 77(1)1 [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Local Contract Act”) and Article 92(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Local Contract Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant imposition of penalty surcharge”). [The grounds for recognition are stated in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 8, and Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number)]

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 29 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 31 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

arrow