logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.09.17 2019고정137
전기공사업법위반
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No electrical construction business operator shall have another person receive or execute electrical construction by using his/her name or trade name, and no one shall receive or execute electrical construction using his/her trade name.

1. Defendant A and C had been in charge of fire fighting and other related construction work from around 2013 to Ulsan City, Jung-gu, and the construction business of machinery, equipment, etc. located in Section D and Section E. At present, Defendant A and C had been awarded a contract for electrical construction and fire fighting construction work among the construction business of the Busan Urban Railroad Type 2, which was ordered from H from around 2015 to H, which was operated by the branch of G, with I around August of the same year.

Defendant

A around August 2015, A proposed that “A would receive fire-fighting facility and electrical construction among the J Station development projects,” and that “A would cause damage to the electrical construction amounting to approximately KRW 330,000,000,00,000,” and C agreed that Defendant A and C would receive or execute electrical construction by lending the trade name of K company registered for electrical construction business.

Accordingly, on September 10, 2015, Defendant A and C entered into an electrical construction contract with the said H in the name of the said H at the H office located in Yangsan-si L building M, and C directly executed electrical construction at Yangsan-si from the first police officer of the same month to the first police officer of March 2016.

As a result, Defendant A received a construction contract and executed it using the trade name of K company registered for the electrical construction business in collusion with C.

2. Defendant B received a proposal from Defendant B, a person operating K, an electrical construction company under the name of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and from Defendant B, around August 2015 to September 9, 2015, that “A would be entitled to electrical construction during the J Station Development Project, and if he/she borrowed the name of K, the conclusion of the contract will be internal, and C will be done by doing work, and 5% of the contract amount will be paid as commission.”

arrow