トライ

The violator contracted with a person conducting construction work without a construction business license in violation of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Building Business Act, in relation to private construction work in Hikone City. This is recognized as falling under Item 6, Paragraph 1, Article 28 of the same Act. Additionally, the construction work violated Article 26, Paragraph 3, as it required a dedicated technician but the chief technician was assigned to another project. This is recognized as falling under Item 2, Paragraph 1, Article 28. Furthermore, the violator assigned a dedicated technician from the office as the chief technician for the construction work, which also violates Articles 7, Paragraph 2, and 26, Paragraph 3, of the Act. This is recognized as falling under Item 2, Paragraph 1, Article 28. Moreover, the violator failed to provide the required written document at the time of subcontracting the construction work, violating Article 19 of the Act. This is recognized as falling under the main clause of Paragraph 1, Article 28.

The respondent, in a private construction project in Hikone City, did not obtain the specific construction business license under category 2 of Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Building Business Act, yet violated the provisions of Article 16, Paragraph 2 of the same Act by entering into a subcontracting agreement with a subcontract amount exceeding the amount specified by government ordinance (before the revision by Ordinance No. 366 of 2024). This is recognized as corresponding to Article 28, Paragraph 3 of the same Act (applicable under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 28).