1. Of the lawsuit in this case, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the imposition of penalty points and the claim for cancellation of the determination of cumulative points shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a principal contractor under Article 2(2)1 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, such as entrusting a large number of subcontractors, who are small and medium enterprises, with the manufacture of components, etc. of a ship as a business.

B. On December 10, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to take corrective measures and pay a penalty surcharge on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of unilaterally reducing the subcontract price violates Article 3(1), 4(2)2, and 11(1) of the Subcontract Act without agreement with the subcontractor, upon entrusting the subcontractor with the manufacture, etc., the Plaintiff did not issue a document stating the contents of the subcontract to the subcontractor. The Defendant issued a corrective order and payment order to the Plaintiff on the ground that the act of unilaterally reducing the subcontract price violates Article 3(1), 4(2)2, and 11(1) of the Subcontract Act. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s examiner did not pay KRW 27,346,00 for the subcontract price even after the Plaintiff received the object entrusted to two subcontractors on December 18, 2015, even if the period exceeds 60 days after the Plaintiff received the object, the Defendant’s examiner did not pay the subcontract price to two subcontractors with a bill with a maturity exceeding 60 days from the date of receipt of the object.

(2) On January 8, 2016, the Defendant’s examiner issued a warning to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to pay KRW 2,668,00 to one subcontractor for payment of the bill substitution fee violates Article 13(7) of the Subcontract Act.

(G) On May 8, 2018, the Defendant’s act of not issuing a document stating the contents of the subcontract while entrusting the subcontractor with the manufacture, etc., on the ground that Article 3(1) of the Subcontract Act violates the said Act.