1. Of the instant lawsuit, 1,334. Of the payment orders indicated in attached Form 1(3) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff as Resolution B on January 9, 2020.

Details of the disposition

원고는 건설산업기본법 제2조 제7호에 따라 토목건축공사업 등을 영위하는 중소기업사업자로서 주식회사 C(이하 ‘C’이라 한다)에게 ‘D공사(이하 ’이 사건 공사‘라 한다)’를 위탁하였고, 하도급계약 체결 당시 공시된 시공능력 평가액의 합계액이 C보다 많으므로, 구 하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법률(2019. 4. 30. 법률 제16415호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘하도급법’이라 한다) 제2조 제2항 제2호의 규정에 의한 원사업자에 해당한다.

On the other hand, C is a small and medium entrepreneur who is engaged in construction business pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and is entrusted with the instant construction business by the Plaintiff, who is the principal contractor.

The Defendant entrusted the instant construction to C on January 9, 2020 (hereinafter “instant resolution”), and issued an order to prevent recurrence as set out in attached Forms 1 and 2, order to pay interest for delay as set out in attached Forms 1 and 3, order to pay interest for delay as set out in paragraph 3, and warning as set out in Paragraph 4, on the ground that the Plaintiff entrusted the instant construction to C in violation of the Subcontract Act.

On May 27, 2020, the Defendant made a decision to change the “interest 4,688,480 won” in Paragraph 3 of the Disposition of this case (Attached Form 1 Paragraph 3) to “interest 1,334,232 won”.

Meanwhile, in the instant decision, the Defendant is difficult to view that the amount of violation of the Plaintiff’s act of determining unfair subcontract consideration was not small, and the order for payment was not issued and thus the subcontractor’s damage was relieved. The Defendant’s act of violation on the basis that the number of violations has a significant ripple effect on the establishment of fair order for subcontract transactions.” Article 25-3 of the Subcontract Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on October 16, 2018.