logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.06.22 2017노347
건설산업기본법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is Defendant A as the representative director of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and the Defendant Company, as the representative contractor for the instant new construction works, received a joint supply of and demand for the instant new construction works jointly with three companies such as M Co., Ltd., and H merely awarded a subcontract for some construction works such as a tomb and flood control, and did not provide a subcontract for the entire construction works.

2. The Defendants also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant A can sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant A subcontracted the entire new construction of G management to H as stated in the facts charged, and the lower court’s judgment that made the same conclusion is just and acceptable, and there were errors by misapprehending the facts.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

① On December 19, 2014, Defendant A, the representative director of the Defendant Company, filed a complaint with the investigative agency against G, who is the representative director of H (hereinafter “H”) of H (hereinafter “H”) on the charge of embezzlement and fraud.

On July 3, 2013, Defendant Company: (a) contracted with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “New Construction Corporation”); (b) concluded with H on August 2013 the G Business Convention (hereinafter “the instant agreement”); and accordingly, Defendant A entered into a new construction agreement with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (c) Defendant A entered into the instant agreement with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “the instant passbook”); and (d) solely used the instant passbook for the purpose of the instant construction; (b) embezzlement by individually withdrawing and consuming the construction cost deposited in the said passbook; and (b) on the other hand, around October 2013, the said agreement was concluded, G used for the instant construction.

arrow