안전 바카라사이트

1. Case overview

 

Company H is a leading domestic construction company engaged in civil engineering and earthwork. H was investigated by the Korea Fair Trade Commission for violating the Subcontracting Act in a subcontracting transaction with a subcontractor entrusted with some 안전 바카라사이트 high-speed national highway construction project ordered by the Korea Expressway Corporation (the "Project").

 

The complainant, who was a subcontractor of H, alleged that H (1) determined the subcontract price payable to it to be lower than the sum 안전 바카라사이트 itemized direct construction costs in the statement of works under the relevant construction contract, (2) did not pay the subcontract price to the complainant, (3) did not specify prices and quantities of "additional work" to violate its obligation to issue a written document under the Subcontracting Act even though it had delivered a state of works regarding the "additional work" on 52 occasions, and (4) established special terms and conditions that unfairly infringed on the complainant's interests.

 

2. Our assistance

 

After closely analyzing amendments, specifications, and statements of works for the Project, we, who represented Company H (the “respondent"), found that the subcontract price was continuously increased as an amendment to the original contract was executed 13 times, and that many 안전 바카라사이트 statements of works issued by the respondent to the complainant were included in the scope 안전 바카라사이트 work that should have been performed by the complainant according to the original construction specifications.

 

On the basis 안전 바카라사이트 findings above, we aggressively argued in the course of investigation by the KFTC: (i) since the subcontract price was continuously increased as an amendment agreement was executed 13 times, it could not be considered that the subcontract price was unreasonably determined; (ii) since the respondent executed an agreement and an amendment for settlement with the complainant promptly after construction requirements were fixed, it could not be considered that the subcontractor violated the obligation to issue written documents; (iii) since many of 52 statements of works issued by the respondent were regarding the kinds of construction work that had already been included in the specifications of work, the statements of works should not be viewed that they were regarding “additional work”, and therefore, the delivery of an additional document was not required.

 

3. The result 안전 바카라사이트 KFTC’s investigation: The KFTC decides that the respondent be clear of suspicion, and the investigation process be terminated with the investigator’s issuance of an warning to the respondent.

 

The KFTC accepted our arguments and dismissed the part concerning the allegation of unfair subcontract price determination as there was no evidence that the respondent unfairly determined the subcontract price in relation to the subcontract 안전 바카라사이트 Project. With regard to the part concerning the allegation of non-payment, the KFTC terminated the investigation process on the ground that there was no evidence that the respondent did not pay the complainant the subcontract price. Further, while the KFTC found that the respondent's alleged acts of not issuing a written document and setting unfair special terms and conditions were admissible, the KFTC accepted our argument to a large extent and imposed a minor sanction of issuing an warning under the investigator’s authority to the respondent. In particular, in the case 안전 바카라사이트 alleged failure to provide a written document, following our arguments, the KFTC found that only 21 안전 바카라사이트 52 statements of works violated the applicable law.

 

4. Implications

 

By carefully analyzing the contents 안전 바카라사이트 statement of works delivered for the work in question and the specifications 안전 바카라사이트 work in question, we were able to prove that the respondent did not violate the provisions 안전 바카라사이트 Subcontracting Act, thereby minimizing the extent 안전 바카라사이트 disadvantages that the respondent could have suffered from the KFTC's decision. In particular, our argument that a significant portion 안전 바카라사이트 work directed by the delivery 안전 바카라사이트 statements of works did not constitute “additional work” played a crucial role in reducing the level of sanctions that could have been imposed on the respondent for violation 안전 바카라사이트 obligation to issue a written document under the Subcontracting Act.

The manner in which we assisted the respondent in this case will serve as a model for future investigations into alleged violations 안전 바카라사이트 Subcontracting Act.

 

​□ Attorneys in charge: Baek Kwang-hyeon, Han Weon-Cheol