Samsung Heavy Industries, which received a corrective order from the Fair Trade Commission for issuing contracts to subcontractors only after the subcontract work had begun, filed a complaint against it, but lost.
The Administrative Division of the Seoul High Court 6-2 (Presiding Judge Gwang-ha Wi) announced on the 25th that it had lost the plaintiff on the 21st in a lawsuit filed by Samsung Heavy Industries to cancel the rectification order against the Commission Fairtrade.
The Fair Trade Commission issued a rectification order, saying that Samsung Heavy Industries did not publish a written (contract) before starting work when it requested 696 subcontracting works for ship processing such as painting by subcontractors between 2014 and 2015. The Act Subcontracting states that the main contractor issues a document to the subcontractor before work on the subcontracting begins. The purpose of the contract is to clarify the contents of the contract in advance so that the primary agency does not verbally sign a subcontract and then change or withdraw the contract before work begins.
Samsung Heavy Industries filed a complaint against him. Samsung Heavy Industries claimed that 619 of the 696 cases were invalidated after the statute of limitations (3 years) had passed, saying that the disposals were not taken until three years after receiving the subcontractors’ reports. In addition, some cases where a contract was not awarded with minor modifications in advance should be exempted from the rectification order.
In particular, according to the Subcontracting Act, ‘issuance of writing’ should be considered to be made at the time the application for a contract was presented to the subcontractor who is alleged to have been taken down.
The court accepted allegations ‘the claim for the end of the prescription for disposal in 619 cases out of 696 cases’ and ‘some cases that cannot be avoided due to minor and frequent amendments’.
However, Samsung Heavy Industries’ claim regarding ‘publication of documents’ standards was not accepted. He said that the ‘publication of writing’ specified by the Subcontracting Act should be regarded as ‘the time the subcontractor signs the contract application’, not ‘the time the contract application is submitted to the subcontractor ‘. “The purpose of this is to prevent disadvantages to the subcontractor by confirming the details of the contract in advance in case the contract is changed or withdrawn close to the start date of the work after the subcontractor terminate the contract verbally,” he explained.
The court said that 69 cases, or 10% of the total, were not small if this criterion were applied. He added, “The illegality of the act, as the complainant asks the subcontractor to delete data to hide the offense of the Subcontracting Act, is great, and there is a fear that the same action will be repeated in the future by hiding. breach of the Subcontract Act.”