2013Guhap1677 Revocation of business suspension

A Stock Company

The Commissioner of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office;

July 19, 2013

August 30, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition of business suspension against the plaintiff on September 10, 2012 is revoked for two months.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff registered the business of dismantling and removing asbestos to the Defendant on September 4, 2009, as a corporation established with the business purpose of dismantling and dismantling structures.

B. On July 24, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a report on asbestos dismantling and removal work to the Defendant on July 27, 2012 pursuant to Article 80-7(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in order to remove 96.44 meters of asbestos containing asbestos in connection with the work for remodeling computer rooms at the Busan East-gu C Middle School located in B, Busan, the Plaintiff issued the report certificate on asbestos dismantling and removal work attached to the said report to the Defendant on July 27, 2012, and received the report certificate on asbestos dismantling and removal work. The work method according to the “plan for asbestos dismantling and removal work” attached to the said report is as follows.

1. Measures at the time of dismantling and removing asbestos (work method) windows, walls, floors, etc. 1. Fluorries, walls, etc. are sealed by implusion blocking materials such as plastic bags. In part, tent materials containing asbestos are carried out removal work after installing container beams.A temporary wall shall be installed when there are insufficient structures such as existing walls, etc. in isolation with other adjacent places.In order to prevent contamination, walls and floors shall be covered with impluent materials such as polyethylene and removed by tapes, etc. in order to prevent contamination.

C. On July 30, 2012, the labor inspector 0 of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency was found to have discovered the fact that the instant work site report was not reported as a work worker on July 30, 2012.

D. Accordingly, on September 10, 2012 following the prior notice of disposition and hearing procedure, the Defendant violated Article 38-4(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act by allowing the Plaintiff to engage in asbestos dismantling and removal work without having the Plaintiff report on the work site of this case as an employee and failing to submit a modified report. On June 14, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for a period of six months from June 14, 201, on the ground that there was the past record of the disposition of suspension of entry under Article 63-2(2), Article 38-4(6), Article 15-2(1)5 of the same Act, Article 15-5 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 143-2(1) [Attachment Table 20] 2-B-7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 15, 2013.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 11 and 13, and images

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, on the day of work, instructed I and P only plastic mountain works that do not fall under asbestos dismantling and removal work, and performed tent dismantling and removal work at will despite that it was scheduled to perform works for dismantling and removal of a tent. Thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff ordered P, a work worker who did not report, to perform works for dismantling and removal of a tent is illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Whether the Plaintiff instructed P to participate in the dissolution and removal of a tent

The following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① the Plaintiff had the power to be subject to business suspension for the same reason even before, ② the representative director D from 11:20 to 10:03 of the date of the instant work, immediately after the Plaintiff’s order to work in advance, and immediately after leaving the site, I and P removed the ceiling; ③ since the process of preparing to protect other parts that are not dismantled before dismantling or removing the ceiling, the vinyl be a kind of preparation is done to protect the other parts that are not dismantled before dismantling or removing the ceiling, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there seems to be no reason to remove and remove the ceiling in the following day. ④ In light of the fact that P and I, who is an employee of the day of the instant work, was ordered by the Plaintiff to dissolve and remove the ceiling in spite of having been ordered by the Plaintiff to do so, the Plaintiff did not report the work to the relevant worker.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge, Chuncheon machine

Judge Doo

Judges Senior Superintendent and Senior Superintendent

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.