K.K. N

1. The construction company established an office in Egawa, Shimamoto Town, Mishima District, on August 18, 2020, and obtained permission under Article 3 of the Construction Business Act from the Osaka Prefectural Governor. However, in August 2021, the company was required to vacate this office and established a new base in Kyoto City, Kyoto Prefecture. In October 2021, the company entered into a lease agreement for a single room at the back of the first floor of a residence rented by a third party in Takahama, Shimamoto Town, Mishima District, but this room lacked fixed telephone lines, signage as required by Article 40 of the Act, and although a mailbox was temporarily installed, the company did not have permission from the landlord to use it as an office. Therefore, this room did not meet the requirements of an office under the law and was not considered an office under Article 3. After vacating the original office in August 2021, the company did not establish an office in Osaka Prefecture, and thus lacked a designated technical manager as stipulated in Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Act, who must be stationed full-time at an office in the prefecture. The technical manager was not present at the room in Takahama nor in Kyoto City, and the standards specified in the law were not met. 2. The company's management supervisor for business operations, as defined in Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, is generally required to work at the headquarters or main office on a fixed schedule, excluding days off or non-working days, and must be engaged in duties during designated hours under a specific plan. However, from mid-August 2021 onward, the company’s management supervisor rarely visited the office in Takahama, Shimamoto Town, Mishima District, or the office in Kyoto City, Kyoto Prefecture, and did not meet the standards specified in the law. 3. The office located in Kyoto City, Kyoto Prefecture, which had a fixed telephone, photocopier, signboard, and construction permit notification, and employed staff, was recognized as an office under Article 3 of the Act. Therefore, the company was required to abolish its office in Osaka Prefecture and establish an office in Kyoto Prefecture, but did not obtain the necessary approval from the Kyoto Prefectural Governor.