株式会社ハウスファクトリー

The construction contractor, in a private project in Kyoto Prefecture (hereinafter 'Project 1'), was introduced by a broker and was told to enter the project urgently. In reality, the contractor took on the main part of the construction work subcontracted by M's Corporation, which had been commissioned by the client, in a lump sum. The contractor did not receive technical guidance at the construction site from M's Corporation until the contract was terminated one month later. The site supervisor appointed by the contractor was a dedicated technical staff member of the contractor's office and was not qualified under Article 26, Paragraph 3 of the Building Business Act. As such, the contractor violated Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Building Business Act by subcontracting the main construction work from M's Corporation in a lump sum. Furthermore, in another project within Kyoto Prefecture (hereinafter 'Project 2'), the contractor violated Article 26, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Building Business Act by appointing individuals without the necessary qualifications, who lacked a direct and permanent employment relationship, as chief engineers at the construction site. Additionally, in Project 2, the contractor violated Article 16 of the Building Business Act by entering into subcontract agreements with Nikken Corporation and others without the required permits, with subcontract amounts exceeding the thresholds set by government ordinance, and by contracting with Fujoka Komuten and Yamikami Komuten, who operate without the necessary permits under the Act.