에볼루션 바카라사이트

1. Case summary

On June 29, 2022, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (the “defendant”) made a disposition against a construction company (the “plaintiff”) that it would select and publicly announce the plaintiff as a habitual violator of 2021 in accordance with Article 25-4 of the Act on Fair Subcontract Transaction for the reason that its cumulative penalty points exceeded four points.

On December 8, 2021 before the disposition, the defendant requested the plaintiff to make a clarification in relation to the selection as the habitual 에볼루션 바카라사이트 violating business operator. The plaintiff submitted hundreds of pages of materials with our assistance and clarified that the cumulative points did not exceed four points. However, the defendant made the disposition without specifically explaining the reason why it precluded the plaintiff’s clarification.

​2. Our assistance

We asserted that the defendant’s failure to specifically explain the reason why it precluded the plaintiff’s clarification, in writing, in making the 에볼루션 바카라사이트 constituted the breach of its duty to present reasons under Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

In particular, accumulated points are calculated by subtracting deduction points from penalty points and adding weighted points. The plaintiff emphasized that the 에볼루션 바카라사이트 in this case was illegal on the following grounds: the defendant's judgment on the mitigation points claimed is not indicated at all; and it is difficult to proceed with the appeal proceeding because it is difficult to fully know for what grounds and reasons the plaintiff who received the 에볼루션 바카라사이트 exceeded the accumulated score of four points.

In addition, the plaintiff advanced the following arguments: some of the penalty points received by the plaintiff cannot be included in the accumulated points because they are pending in the appeal proceeding; and according to the Enforcement Decree of the Subcontracting Act [Attached Table 3], the total mitigation score of the plaintiff is three points, so the accumulated score does not exceed four points.

​3. The defendant’s argument

The defendant notified that the sum of the accumulated penalty points of the plaintiff exceeded 4 points. Even though the defendant did not specifically consider the plaintiff’s clarifications through a document, it cannot be regarded as its failure to present reasons.

​4. The court’s judgment: to cancel all of the 에볼루션 바카라사이트 in this case

The court excluded the defendant’s assertions, and accepted all the claims made by the plaintiff.

With regard to the issue as to whether the defendant complied with its duty to present reasons under the Administrative Procedure Act, the court judged that the 에볼루션 바카라사이트 in this case was illegal because it violated the duty to present reasons on the following grounds: (i) there is no effective description other than the statement, “the accumulate score of the plaintiffs exceed four points” in the 에볼루션 바카라사이트 document; (ii) in principle, the reason for 에볼루션 바카라사이트 must be presented in writing; the defendant did not present any judgment on the mitigation score claimed by the plaintiff; and (iii) the reason why the Administrative Procedure Act stipulates the duty to present reasons for 에볼루션 바카라사이트 is not only to prevent arbitrary dispositions by administrative agencies, but also to ensure that the party subject to the 에볼루션 바카라사이트 does not have difficulty in proceeding with the appeal process, but the plaintiff was unable to fully understand the reason and grounds for the 에볼루션 바카라사이트 from the 에볼루션 바카라사이트 document, which hindered the proceeding of the appeal process.

​5. Significance of the decision

In relation to the claim of non-existence of grounds for 에볼루션 바카라사이트 asserted by the other party subject to the 에볼루션 바카라사이트, we obtained the decision that if the administrative agency makes a 에볼루션 바카라사이트 without specifying any grounds for judgment, and the other party cannot know the reason and grounds for the 에볼루션 바카라사이트, this is a violation of the duty to present reasons

This ruling is expected to be of great significance as a standard in cases where the legality of dispositions is contested, and whether or not the administrative agency has violated the duty to present reasons is an issue.

​□Attorney in charge: Beak Gwang-Hyeon and Yu Jung-Min