Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

1. The facts charged in this case

A. On May 2014, Defendant B, as the actual representative of F, was awarded a contract from G to October 18, 2014, with the construction cost of KRW 2,105,000,000 for a kindergarten with a total floor area of 2,096 square meters at H in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant kindergarten construction”) and the construction period of the instant kindergarten construction work period of KRW 2,105,00,000.

No constructor shall subcontract most of the whole or part of any construction works he/she has contracted to another constructor.

Nevertheless, around May 2014, the Defendant subcontracted the remainder of KRW 1,445,00,000 to F, a non-registered construction business operator, who is a non-registered construction business operator, in the office of F, Inc., Ltd. located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, with the exception of the pelvis construction among the construction works contracted as above.

(b) Any person who intends to conduct a comprehensive construction business with the estimated cost of Defendant A in excess of 50 million won shall conduct a construction business after filing for registration with the Minister of Construction and Transportation for each business type;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without registering a comprehensive construction business on May 2014, received a subcontract for a construction project with the estimated construction cost of KRW 1,445,00,000 from B as described in paragraph (a) and carried out a comprehensive construction project.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor charged Defendant B with the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to Defendant B’s blanket subcontracting, stating that Article 96 subparag. 1 and subparag. 9(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry was clearly indicated in the facts charged, and thus, it is clear that Articles 96 subparag. 4 and 29(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry are clearly determined based on this.

In addition, Article 96 subparag. 4 and Article 29(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry does not apply to Defendant A, which is seen after the latter, is clearly determined based on Article 96 subparag. 1 and Article 9(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, not to mention Article 96 subparag. 1 and Article 9(1).

It seems that the prosecutor changed the applicable legal provisions to Defendant B and Defendant A.

§ 1) 1.