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

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) concluded a contract with F as a management corporation of the E logistics warehouse and ordered the construction of removal of fire partition walls in the 7,8 air conditioners with the first floor of the above warehouse (hereinafter “this building removal construction”). G is the owner of the construction who is entrusted by Defendant B with the management of the above logistics warehouse building by Defendant B while residing in the above logistics warehouse in the above logistics warehouse, and is the employee of H who is in charge of the management of warehouse and the removal of this building. Defendant B is the employee of the above logistics warehouse management and the removal of this building by receiving reports from the above G, etc. from time to time and managing the site.

A person who intends to repair a building on a large scale shall obtain permission from the competent authorities.

Defendant

B around November 14, 2008, in the above E logistics warehouse, G, an employee of the defendant, and H, a corporation entrusted the management of the above logistics warehouse building by the defendant, made a substantial repair to remove the wall of the g, the fire partition of the 8 cooling room in the underground floor without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, as in paragraph 2, with respect to the defendant's business.

B. Defendant A, in collusion with I, J and K (the same day of suspension of indictment) at the above temporary location, had F employees, without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, remove the wall, which is a fire partition of the 7,8 cooling room, which is a fire partition of the 7, and the 8 cooling room, on the underground floor, without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

2. Determination:

A. In order to establish the facts charged of this case against the Defendants whether the wall of this case is a fire partition, the construction work of this case, which Defendant B entered into a contract for construction work and Defendant A managed the site of this case as an employee of the Defendant Company, constitutes a substantial repair requiring the permission of the competent authority under the Building Act.