株式会社朱吉建設

1. As of August 28, 2015, A was a management architect as defined under Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Architect Law (Act No. 202 of 2013) and was not employed by the construction company. Additionally, A could hardly access the company's office, could not be stationed there full-time, and did not receive wages exceeding the minimum wage based on the Minimum Wages Law (Law No. 137 of 1959). 2. The company submitted permit applications and related documents on August 28, 2015, claiming that A was a designated technical personnel stationed at the office, despite A not being a full-time employee or stationed there, and falsely reported this to obtain permits for specific construction activities. 3. The company received a copy of B’s first-class architect license, attached it to a change notification submitted on February 24, 2016, claiming B was a designated technical personnel replacing A, but B was employed elsewhere, engaged in site management, and was a management architect under the Architect Law until July 19, 2019. B also rarely entered the company's office and did not receive wages exceeding the regional minimum wage. 4. The company submitted a permit renewal application on September 25, 2016, falsely claiming B was a designated technical personnel stationed at the office, despite B not being employed there full-time. 5. The company received a copy of C’s first-class architect license, attached it to a change notification on October 11, 2019, claiming C was a designated technical personnel replacing B, but C was a management architect not employed by the company until November 15, 2019, and did not regularly enter the office or receive wages exceeding the minimum wage. 6. As of October 9, 2020, the company submitted a permit renewal application with false statements regarding C’s employment status, and C was not employed or stationed at the office, nor received wages exceeding the minimum wage. 7. Overall, the company failed to meet the licensing standards stipulated in Article 15, Item 2 of the Building Business Act.

The construction company received a copy of a first-class architect license from individual A, attached it, and submitted a change notification and documents on October 11, 2021, under the Building Business Act, which are governed by Article 17 of the Act. They falsely stated that, although they did not employ the individual, they had assigned the individual as a dedicated technical engineer under Article 15, Item 2 of the Act, at their office on September 9, 2021. This was a violation of the provisions of Article 11, Paragraphs 1 and 4, of the Act, which are applied mutatis mutandis under Article 17 of the Act.