logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.05.31 2016노2258
건설산업기본법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the Defendants’ resistance

A. Since the instant design works are not included in the interior construction business, it does not constitute a type of business performing specialized construction works as stipulated in Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on Construction Industry and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act [Attachment 1].

Therefore, Defendant C does not constitute “a constructor requiring registration to the Minister of Construction and Transportation” under Article 9(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

Even if the instant map construction works are included in the interior construction business, the agreement entered into between Defendant A and Defendant C on August 13, 2012 on behalf of Defendant B (hereinafter “instant contract”) is not a subcontract but an employment contract.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendants guilty of all the charges, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of two million won for each of the Defendants A and B, and a fine of one million won for each of the Defendants C) is too unreasonable (the Defendants and the defense counsel filed an appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles at the first trial date).

was stated.

However, on September 30, 2016, the reason for appeal by the court below on September 30, 2016 includes the fact that the sentencing of the court below is too large and unfair, and thus, it is also deemed that the unfair argument for sentencing is included in the reason for appeal). 2

A. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendants also asserted the above facts in the lower court, and the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, requires registration under Article 9(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and under the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

arrow