(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.01.16 2019구합75891

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.01.16 2019구합75891

업무정지처분취소

Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on May 31, 2019 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is working for B Corporation from January 7, 1987 to August 22, 2014.

A retired construction engineer, from January 1, 2015, has served in C Co., Ltd.

B On February 13, 2018, the Corporation notified the Defendant of the details of the Plaintiff’s suspicion of illegality on November 9, 2018, that “the instant work experience overlaps with the work experience of 2013” (hereinafter “the first notification”) from May 8, 2014 to August 22, 2014.

On May 31, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for six months (from June 24, 2019 to December 23, 2019) on the ground that “the Plaintiff reported the instant career fraudulently” to the Plaintiff based on Article 24(1)1 of the Construction Technology Promotion Act and Article 20(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s failure to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty

This case's disposition is not recognized merely because there was a clerical error in the business name entry.

Even if the grounds for the instant disposition are recognized, considering the fact that the recognition date of the career experience mistakenly stated as above is only 0.3% of the total recognition date of the Plaintiff 9,972 as 30 days, and there is no practical benefit in the prior examination of the qualification for participation in construction technology services (PP), the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

The career of this case reported differently from the actual work of the defendant shall be deemed to be due to a simple negligence.

참조조문

-건설기술 진흥법 제24조 제1항 제1호

-건설기술 진흥법 시행규칙 제20조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2020.07.03 2019누62026

-서울행정법원 2019.11.08 2018구합84270

-서울행정법원 2020.02.13 2018구합83994

-부산고등법원 2020.02.14 2019누24084