logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2015.08.17 2014누6655
건설업등록말소처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2001. 12. 20. 토공사업, 토목공사업 등을 사업목적으로 설립되어 2007. 10. 8. 토목건축공사업등록(등록번호: B)을 마친 법인인데, 2010. 1. 11. 건설업등록기준(자본금) 미달을 이유로 피고로부터 영업정지 3개월(2010. 1. 13.~2010. 4. 12.)의 처분을 받았다.

In the case of operating a business subject to diagnosis and a business concurrently operating separate accounting of the business subject to diagnosis and the business concurrently operating assets, but it is unclear that the classification is made, the ratio of concurrent operation (construction site-forest, 397,480,000) shall be divided in proportion to the income amount of each business in the fiscal year to which the base date for diagnosis belongs, and the ratio of concurrent operation (Article 28 of the Corporate Diagnosis Guidelines) shall be calculated based on the calculation of the ratio of concurrent operation (construction site-forest, 397,480,00) in the calculation of the ratio of actual capital (Article 28 of the Corporate Diagnosis Guidelines). In the case of tangible assets not related to the business subject to diagnosis, such as leased assets or closed assets, the amount calculated by the ratio of the total area of the land or buildings to the total area of the business shall be deemed concurrent operation assets; in the case of assets leased, there is no possibility of transactions; it is no leased real estate; it is more than 150,000,000 won in the market price of the business diagnosis guidelines;

B. After implementing a fact-finding survey on the registration standards for construction business in 2011 (based on December 31, 2010), the Korea Construction Association notified the Defendant of the list of disqualified companies that fall short of the registration standards, including the Plaintiff, on January 3, 2012. In the case of the Plaintiff, the total capital on the financial statements in 2010 is stated as KRW 1,353,505,959, but the following non-performing assets are non-performing assets:

arrow