Business Suspension Records in Japan

（株）東部興産は、福岡県内で請け負った造園工事において建設業法第３条第１項の許可を受けないで建設業を営むものと同法施行令第１条の２第１項で定める軽微な建設工事の範囲を超えて下請契約を締結した。 このことは、同法第２８条第１項第６号に該当すると認められる。

（有）東雲組は、北九州市内の２カ所の民間工事において、建設業法第３条第１項の許可を受けないで建設業を営む（株）隆篤建設及びＲＫ ＫＡＷＡＴＡと、同法施行令第１条の２第１項で定める軽微な建設工事の範囲を超えて、それぞれ下請契約を締結した。以上のことは、建設業法第28条第１項第６号に該当する。

（株）隆篤建設は、北九州市内の民間工事において、建設業の許可を得ずに、建設業法施行令第１条の２第１項に規定する軽微な建設工事の範囲を超える請負契約を（有）東雲組と締結した。以上のことは、建設業法第３条第１項に違反し、同法第28条第２項第２号に該当する。

ＲＫ ＫＡＷＡＴＡは、北九州市内の民間工事において、建設業の許可を得ずに、建設業法施行令第１条の２第１項に規定する軽微な建設工事の範囲を超える請負契約を（有）東雲組と締結した。以上のことは、建設業法第３条第１項に違反し、同法第28条第２項第２号に該当する。

小久保鉄筋工業株式会社の代表取締役は、同社の業務に関し、法定の除外事由がないのに、労働者３名に対し、令和６年６月２１日から令和６年７月２０日までの間に、１年単位の変形労働時間制に関する協定、時間外労働及び休日労働に関する協定に定めた時間を超えて、時間外労働及び休日労働をさせた。 この件について、令和８年１月９日、大宮簡易裁判所から同社及び同社代表取締役が労働基準法違反で略式命令（いずれも罰金３０万円）を受け、その刑が確定している。 このことが、建設業法第２８条第１項第３号に該当すると認められる。

アメリカンエンジニアリングコーポレーションは、過去３事業年度（令和５年１月１日から令和７年１２月３１日まで）において、主任技術者または監理技術者となり得る資格等（法第７条第２号イ、ロ及び同法第１５条第２号ロの規定に基づく実務の経験を含む。）を持たない者を主任技術者または監理技術者として工事現場に設置していた。 このことは、法第２８条第１項第２号に該当すると認められる。

アイテック株式会社の代表取締役及び取締役は、同社の業務に関し、廃棄物の処理及び清掃に関する法律（昭和４５年法第１３７号）に違反したとして、令和５年１月５日に七尾簡易裁判所から罰金刑の略式命令を受け、その後、刑が確定した。 このことは、建設業法第２８条第１項第３号に該当すると認められる。

株式会社新都メンテナンス及び同社工務課長は、令和５年度初月分区汚水管渠築造工事の施工中、令和５年11月22日に下水管を敷設する作業中に生じた地山の崩壊により、作業員が脳挫傷により死亡した事故について、掘削業務における作業方法から生ずる危険防止措置（土止め支保工等）を講じていなかったことにより、高知簡易裁判所から略式命令を受け、令和８年２月７日に労働安全衛生法違反及び業務上過失致死の罪により、罰金20万円（法人）及び罰金50万円（個人）の刑が確定している。 このことは、建設業法第28条第１項第３号に該当する。

和工建設株式会社の元代表取締役と総務課長は、八雲税務署に対し虚偽の法人税及び地方法人税確定申告を行う不正の行為により、法人税及び地方法人税を一部免れた。 このことにより、令和８年４月15日、函館地方裁判所において法人税法及び地方法人税法違反で同社が罰金1,000万円、元代表取締役が懲役１年２月（執行猶予３年）、総務課長が懲役８月（執行猶予３年）の判決を受け、同20日に刑が確定した。 このことは、建設業法第28条第１項第３号に該当するものである。

株式会社乙邊工業の元代表取締役が、銚子市が発注する工事の入札において、公契約関係競売等妨害の罪により、千葉地方裁判所から令和８年３月２４日に懲役２年６月（執行猶予４年）の判決を受け、令和８年４月８日にその刑が確定した。 このことは、法第２８条第１項第２号及び第３号に該当する。

正和運輸株式会社の元取締役A及びBは、八雲税務署に対し虚偽の法人税及び地方法人税確定申告を行う不正の行為により、法人税及び地方法人税を一部免れた。 このことにより、令和８年４月15日、函館地方裁判所において法人税法及び地方法人税法違反で同社が罰金1,000万円、元取締役Aが懲役１年２月（執行猶予３年）、Bが懲役８月（執行猶予３年）の判決を受け、同20日に刑が確定した。 このことは、建設業法第28条第１項第３号に該当するものである。

光サービスの事業主は、建設工事により生じた産業廃棄物を自家製焼却炉で焼却したことにより起訴され、廃棄物の処理及び清掃に関する法律等に基づき、罰金20万円の略式命令を受け、その刑が確定した。

株式会社岡島電設工業は、京都府木津川市での建築工事について、元請負人が、建設業法第３条第１項第２号に規定する特定建設業許可を有していないにもかかわらず、下請負人として、当該元請負人との間で、同号の政令で定める金額以上の建設工事請負契約を締結した。このことは、建設業法第２８条第１項第７号に該当すると認められる。

株式会社ライフスケッチは、京都府木津川市内及び大阪府大阪市内での建築工事において、建築一式工事業に関する特定建設業の許可を受けることなく、建設業法第３条第１項第２号の政令で定める金額以上で下請契約を締結した。このことが、建設業法第２８条第１項第２号に該当する。

関東建設工業株式会社の元社員は、群馬県桐生市が令和４年１０月１９日に入札を執行した「桐生市新本庁舎建設工事」の入札に関し、偽計を用いて、公の入札で契約を締結するためのものの公正を害すべき行為をしたとして、令和７年１２月２４日にさいたま地方裁判所から公契約関係競売等妨害罪により懲役１年（執行猶予３年）の判決を受け、その刑が確定している。 このことが建設業法第２８条第１項第２号に該当すると認められる。

当該建設業を営む者は、２０２５年日本国際博覧会の建設工事において、建設業法第３条第１項の規定に違反して同項の許可を受けないで請負代金が建設業法施行令第１条の２に定める金額以上となる建設工事を請け負った。

当該建設業を営む者は、２０２５年日本国際博覧会の建設工事において、建設業法第３条第１項の規定に違反して同項の許可を受けないで請負代金が建設業法施行令第１条の２に定める金額以上となる建設工事を請け負った。

当該建設業を営む者は、２０２５年日本国際博覧会の建設工事において、建設業法第３条第１項の規定に違反して同項の許可を受けないで請負代金が建設業法施行令第１条の２に定める金額以上となる建設工事を請け負った。

The company used PC steel bars of different specifications from those in the design documents during the Kamo River riverbed improvement project ordered by Toyama Prefecture, without reporting this to Toyama Prefecture, resulting in a significant defect in the construction. Additionally, the company submitted a false inspection certificate claiming the PC steel bars were in accordance with the design documents. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act.

株式会社緑研の前代表取締役は、令和元年１０月から令和２年９月までの事業年度において、架空の外注費を計上する方法により、所得を秘匿した確定申告を行い、法人税及び地方法人税を免れた。これにより、前代表取締役は、令和７年１１月１２日に熊本地方裁判所において、法人税法及び地方法人税法違反により、懲役１年２月（執行猶予３年）、同社は罰金８００万円の判決を受け、それぞれの刑が確定している。 このことは、建設業法第２８条第１項第３号に該当すると認められる。

株式会社伊藤組の元代表取締役は、小国町発注工事の指名競争入札に関し、同社を含む小国町建設業協会に所属する業者が選定されたことなどへの謝礼として、令和５年（２０２３年）６月１６日から令和６年（２０２４年）１２月１７日までの間、小国町元建設課長に対し、飲食等の接待を繰り返し行った贈賄の罪により、令和８年（２０２６年）３月１３日、熊本地方裁判所から懲役１０月、執行猶予３年の判決が言い渡され、同年３月２７日、その刑が確定した。

株式会社中央技術コンサルタンツの元社員である元東北支店長は、宮城県気仙沼市が発注した業務の入札において、気仙沼市職員が漏洩した情報を入手し、公正な入札を妨害したとして、令和７年７月２１日、宮城県警に公契約関係競売入札妨害の容疑で逮捕され、同年８月８日、仙台地検に公契約関係競売入札妨害の罪で起訴された。その後、同市が発注した別の業務においても、同市職員が漏洩した情報を入手し、公正な入札を妨害したとして、同年８月２０日、仙台地検に公契約関係競売入札妨害の罪で追起訴された。同年１１月１８日に判決の言い渡し、同年１２月３日に刑が確定している。このことから、測量法第５７条第２項の規定に基づく営業の停止命令を行った。停止する期間は令和８年４月１４日から令和８年６月１２日までの６０日間。問い合わせ先：関東地方整備局建政部建設産業第二課０４８－６０１－３１５１

Yamabe Motoyasu, the representative director of Hachibo Construction Co., Ltd., was found to have violated the Labor Standards Act by requiring workers at construction sites in Nara Prefecture to work overtime exceeding 40 hours per week and more than 8 hours per day excluding break time, from October 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025, despite no exemption applying to the company's operations. He was sentenced to a fine of 200,000 yen by the Katsuragi Summary Court on February 26, 2026, and the sentence was finalized. This conduct is recognized as corresponding to Item 3, Paragraph 1, Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

Ogura Denki Service Ltd. violated the Construction Business Act by entering into subcontract agreements with entities operating without the necessary permits, knowing the circumstances, in private construction projects within Tokyo. Additionally, the company engaged in electrical work without the required permit, exceeding the amount specified in the Enforcement Order of the Act. These actions correspond to Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 6; Paragraph 2, Item 2; and Paragraph 3 of the Construction Business Act.

The construction company violated Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act by undertaking construction work with a contract amount exceeding the amount specified in Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act, without obtaining the necessary permit for scaffolding and earthwork construction, in multiple private-sector projects.

Sansen Corporation violated Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act by undertaking multiple private construction projects in Tokyo exceeding the amount specified in Enforcement Order Article 1-2, Paragraph 1, during a period when it did not hold the necessary license. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Items 2 and 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Nanzan Kaihatsu Co., Ltd. was found to have submitted construction history documents and lists of technical personnel that contained false information when applying for management review from 2022 to 2024. Based on this, the company applied for bidding qualification with Okinawa Prefecture, the public works client. This is recognized as corresponding to the provisions of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act.

Fujiken Sekou Co., Ltd. was found to have submitted construction history documents and lists of technical personnel that contained false information when applying for the management review from 2022 to 2024. Based on this, the company applied for bid participation qualification with Okinawa Prefecture, the public works procurer. This is recognized as corresponding to the provisions of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act.

Konoan Construction Co., Ltd. was found to have submitted construction history documents and lists of technical personnel that contained false information when applying for the management review from 2022 to 2024. Based on this, the company applied for bid participation qualification with Okinawa Prefecture, the public works procurer. This is recognized as corresponding to the provisions of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act.

The Executive Director of Koshin Kensetsu Kogyo Co., Ltd. provided a bribe of approximately 90,000 yen to a Urakawa town official in May 2025, under the pretext of receiving guidance on the estimated price of public works. On February 4, 2026, in Sapporo Summary Court, he was sentenced to a fine of 300,000 yen for the crime of bribery under Article 198 of the Penal Code, and the sentence was finalized on the same day. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

K.K. S.H. Kogyo contracted for foundation work worth 130,273,000 yen for the HACCP factory warehouse expansion project from October 2024 to March 2025 without possessing the permits for civil engineering or earthwork construction. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act.

The former representative director of Shinko Jitsugyo Co., Ltd. was convicted of obstructing fair public bidding by using fraudulent means to interfere with the integrity of public contracts related to two bidding processes conducted by Omachi City, Nagano Prefecture, on August 21 and December 11 of Reiwa 6 (2024). On October 16 of Reiwa 7 (2025), the Nagano District Court sentenced him to one year in prison, with a three-year suspended sentence, for violating the Public Contract Act. This is deemed to correspond to items 2 and 3 of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act.

Officers of Daruma Shoten Ltd. were convicted of violating the Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law (Law No. 137 of 1970) and sentenced to a fine of 300,000 yen by Kakogawa Summary Court, with the sentence finalized on July 14, 2023. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Officers of Nishiyo Kogyo Co., Ltd. were convicted of violating the Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law (Law No. 137 of 1970) and sentenced to a fine of 400,000 yen by the Himeji Summary Court. The sentence was finalized on July 13, 2024. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

An employee of Kobayashi Construction Co., Ltd. was convicted of obstructing public contract-related bidding processes under the crime of obstruction of public contract proceedings, by the Chiba District Court on January 15, 2026, receiving a sentence of one year in prison (with a three-year suspension). The sentence was finalized on January 30, 2026. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Items 2 and 3 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

In late June of Reiwa 6 (2024), Yuichiro Kosaka, then CEO of Tano Sangyo Co., Ltd., received secret information regarding the minimum bid price for the Hirai Elementary School Gymnasium Major Renovation Construction Project from Eio Tsukamoto, Vice Mayor of Fujioka City, by phone. Around July 3, Reiwa 6, Yuichiro Kosaka instructed Tano Sangyo Co., Ltd. to submit a bid equal to the minimum bid price and on July 4, the company was awarded the contract for the project. This involved using fraudulent means and disclosing confidential information related to the bid to unfairly influence the contract award. On October 7, Reiwa 7, the Maebashi District Court sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months in prison, with a three-year probation, and the sentence was finalized.

Futaba Manufacturing Co., Ltd. was involved in a tank accessory inspection equipment construction project in Oga City, Akita Prefecture, where on May 29, 2023, a generator's oil pan fell during lifting with a crane and collided with a worker inside the tank, resulting in death. The company failed to implement measures to prevent falling objects, such as setting up restricted entry zones, despite the risk of falling causing danger to workers. Although the oil pan was previously unfastened from the generator, it was not securely removed, and the company neglected its duty to prevent falling, leading to the oil pan dropping and causing the worker's death. On September 18, 2025, the Oga Summary Court sentenced the company to a fine of 300,000 yen and one employee to a fine of 500,000 yen for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act and for occupational negligence resulting in death. This case is recognized as applicable under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Kabushiki Kaisha Hokuei Kensetsu did not assign a chief technical officer to a private construction project in Hachioji City, Tokyo, contracted on April 30, Reiwa 6 (2024). This violates Article 26, Paragraph 1 of the Building Business Act and falls under Item 2, Paragraph 1, Article 28 of the same Act, making it subject to a business suspension order under Paragraph 3 of that article.

The company was prosecuted by the Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office for conducting illegal overtime work beyond the extended hours under the labor-management agreement based on Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act, for two workers in the headquarters construction department. The company and two officers were issued a summary order of a 300,000 yen fine on December 4, 2024. This is recognized as corresponding to Item 3, Paragraph 1, Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

The construction company above entered into subcontract agreements exceeding the amount specified in Enforcement Order for the Construction Business Act, with persons not holding a construction business license. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Construction Business Act.

Construction company Matsuo Painting Co., Ltd. operated construction business without a license. In a public works project commissioned by Fukuoka Prefecture, the company altered a copy of a permit notification issued to another party, creating a duplicate that appeared to be an authentic permit notification in form and appearance. The company presented this to a primary subcontractor, leading to the mistaken belief that it was a licensed contractor. On June 23, 2022, the company entered into a subcontract agreement exceeding the scope of minor construction work as defined by the Enforcement Order of the Act. This conduct violates Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act and falls under Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 28 of the same Act.

The director of Shiose Co., Ltd. disposed of approximately 6.2 tons of construction and industrial waste, including debris and waste plastics, at a construction site in Koshigaya City, Saitama Prefecture, between November 27 and December 4, Reiwa 6, without the statutory exemption. As a result, a fine of 500,000 yen was finalized for violating the Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law (Koshigaya Summary Court, June 4, Reiwa 7). This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

The construction company failed to take necessary measures to prevent hazards related to fall risks at a Tokyo-based air conditioning installation site where they were the prime contractor. As a result, on March 10, 2022, a worker (an employee of a subcontractor) fell from a height and subsequently died. The company and supervising engineers received summary fines from the Tokyo Summary Court on March 19, 2025, for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act and for professional negligence resulting in death, and these penalties were finalized. This is recognized as corresponding to Item 3, Paragraph 1, Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

The person engaged in the construction industry contracted construction work for the 2025 Japan International Exposition without the required permit, in violation of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, and the contract amount exceeded the amount specified in Enforcement Ordinance of the Construction Business Act, Article 1-2.

An employee of Paruto Corporation was fined by the Tokushima Summary Court on September 19, 2025, for violations of the Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law related to the company's operations, and the sentence was finalized on October 7, 2025. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

The person engaged in the construction industry contracted construction work for the 2025 Japan International Exposition without the required permit, in violation of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, and the contract amount exceeded the amount specified in Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act, Article 1-2.

A person engaged in the construction industry contracted construction work for the 2025 Japan International Expo without the required permit, in violation of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, and the contract amount exceeded the amount specified in the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act, without obtaining the necessary authorization.

The former representative director of Hirose Corporation was convicted of obstructing bidding in a public contract auction (Article 96-6, Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code) and received a sentence of one year in prison (with a three-year probation) from the Oita District Court on September 29, 2025, with the sentence finalized. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 3 of the Construction Business Act (Item 3, Paragraph 1 of the same article).

Senden Corporation repeatedly undertook construction work that does not qualify as minor construction work specified in the proviso of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, despite not having obtained a construction business license as required by the same law. This constitutes a violation of Item 2, Paragraph 2, Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

Yoshioka Corporation engaged in construction work without obtaining the construction business license required under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, other than minor construction work specified by government ordinance in the proviso of that paragraph. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act. Additionally, for a new factory construction project in Tenri City, Nara Prefecture, the company entered into subcontracting agreements exceeding the amount specified by government ordinance in the Construction Business Act without holding the specific construction business license for building construction, which constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the same Act.

Kawada Juken Co., Ltd. succeeded to the status of a construction business operator under Article 17-2, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. In a construction project within Misato Town, it entered into a subcontracting agreement exceeding the amount specified by government ordinance under Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Act without obtaining a specific construction business license for building construction. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Act. Additionally, the project was contracted in a lump sum with the subcontractor in violation of Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the Act, which constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Act.

The representative director of Reiwa Corporation unlawfully dumped approximately 6.2 tons of industrial waste, including debris and waste plastics, at a construction site in Koshigaya City, Saitama Prefecture, between November 27 and December 4, 2024, without any statutory exemption. As a result, the company was fined 1 million yen and the representative director was fined 500,000 yen for violations of the Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Urawa Kogyo Co., Ltd. was issued a summary order on March 7, 2025, by the Okinawa Summary Court for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act and for professional negligence resulting in death. The violations occurred during the assembly of scaffolding over 5 meters high at a private renovation site in Okinawa City, Okinawa Prefecture, on July 4, 2024. The company failed to monitor the progress of workers' tasks and did not perform the duties of the scaffolding supervisor. Additionally, it neglected the duty to prevent electric shock accidents by installing protective pipes on high-voltage lines, failed to take necessary measures, and did not monitor the work progress. As a result, the company was fined 200,000 yen (corporate) and the individual was fined 500,000 yen, which is recognized as falling under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Take Corporation used an IC card registered under the former representative's name to participate in the bid for the construction project 'Traffic Safety Repair Work 07-98-21' ordered by the Tsuruga Civil Engineering Office, Reinan Promotion Bureau, Fukui Prefecture, despite having changed the representative. Additionally, the company listed the former representative's name in the bid qualification confirmation documents and the construction contract, and proceeded with the bidding and contract procedures. This is recognized as corresponding to Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Building Business Act.

The construction company violated Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Construction Business Act by appointing a person without an employment relationship (direct and permanent) as a supervising engineer to undertake construction work. This is deemed to fall under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

Oharakoumuten Co., Ltd. and its sales manager were convicted on August 29, 2025, by the Nagoya District Court for violations of the Corporation Tax Act and the Local Corporation Tax Act. The company was fined 8 million yen, and the sales manager was sentenced to one year in prison (with a three-year probation) and fined 3.5 million yen. The sentence has been finalized. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Makino Komuten Co., Ltd. contracted construction work in Tenri City, Nara Prefecture, as a subcontractor without holding the construction business license specified in Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act for general construction work. This is recognized as falling under Item 6 of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. Additionally, the prime contractor did not possess the specified construction business license as defined in Item 2 of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Act, yet entered into a construction contract exceeding the amount specified in the government ordinance for construction work with the subcontractor. This is recognized as falling under Item 7 of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

Nishi-Kei Kogyo Co., Ltd. submitted applications for each of the management review dates of September 30, 2022, September 30, 2023, and September 30, 2024, listing individuals who are responsible for business management at other companies on the technical staff roster, and submitted the resulting comprehensive evaluation notices to public project clients, who used these results for qualification screening. This is recognized as corresponding to Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act.

The construction company contracted subcontractors beyond the scope of minor construction work defined under the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act without obtaining the permit required by Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, in relation to general construction, scaffolding, earthwork, and concrete work in Fukushima and Ibaraki Prefectures. This is deemed to fall under Item 6, Paragraph 1, Article 28 of the same Act.

Shioyume Soken Corporation engaged in private construction work within Tokyo exceeding the specified amount without holding the permit required under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Item 2, and Paragraph 3 of the same Act.

EYL Corporation engaged in multiple private construction projects within Tokyo exceeding the specified monetary threshold without possessing the license required under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Item 2, and Paragraph 3 of the same Act.

Glassphere Japan Inc. assigned dispatched workers without a direct employment relationship as chief engineers to multiple construction projects outside of construction work in Matsubara City, Osaka Prefecture, from July 2022 to March 2024. This violates Article 26, Paragraph 1, and falls under Items 2 and 3 of Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

Office Nexus Corporation engaged in construction work exceeding the specified amount without holding the license required under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, for private projects in Suginami and Arakawa wards, Tokyo. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Item 2, and Paragraph 3 of the same Act.

Toto Business Corporation engaged in multiple private construction projects within Tokyo exceeding the amount specified in the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act without possessing the required license under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Item 2, and Paragraph 3 of the same Act.

SoeNe Corporation violated Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act by undertaking electrical construction work exceeding the amount specified in Enforcement Order Article 1-2, Paragraph 1, without holding the necessary license. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Item 2, and Paragraph 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Renew Pacific Corporation engaged in private construction work within Tokyo exceeding the specified amount without holding the license required under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Item 2, and Paragraph 3 of the same Act.

Kabu-shiki Kaisha Plus 1 submitted false information by overstating completed construction amounts in the management evaluation application and attached documents during the management evaluation on May 31, 2024, and May 31, 2025. They also submitted the management evaluation result notices based on these applications to Fukuoka Prefecture on October 8, 2024, and October 16, 2025, respectively, to participate in the construction bidding qualification examinations for fiscal years 2027 and 2028. These actions constitute violations of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act.

The person engaged in the construction industry contracted a construction project in Osaka City with a contract amount exceeding the amount specified in the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act without obtaining the required permit, in violation of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act.

Matsumoto Kawaguchi Kintetsu Corporation engaged in construction work without the permit for machinery and equipment installation work as required by Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, in violation of that paragraph. The work contracted does not fall under the minor construction work specified in the proviso of that paragraph. This constitutes a violation of Item 2, Paragraph 1, Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

Yoshida Tosou Satoshi Yoshida engaged in multiple construction projects without obtaining the construction business license required under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, other than minor construction work specified by government ordinance in the proviso of that paragraph. This is recognized as corresponding to Item 2, Paragraph 2 of Article 28 of the Act.

K.K. T.K. Kogyo engaged in private demolition work in Higashiosaka City, Osaka Prefecture, where the prime contractor, despite not holding the construction business license specified in Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Building Business Act, entered into a construction contract with the subcontractor for construction work other than minor construction work as defined by government ordinance in the proviso of the same paragraph. This is deemed to fall under Item 6, Paragraph 1, Article 28 of the Act.

The construction company engaged in fraudulent conduct related to the bidding and contract procedures for a project ordered by Minoh City, including modifying and falsifying the review date on the 'Management Scale Evaluation Result Notification and Comprehensive Evaluation Value Notification' prepared by the Governor of Osaka Prefecture.

Yugen Kaisha Hashida Construction falsely reported that security personnel were deployed for a project commissioned by Kuroshio Town, despite not having deployed any, thereby unjustly inflating personnel costs and making claims accordingly.

A former director of Abe Construction Co., Ltd. was involved in the fraudulent receipt of subsidies related to the Small and Medium Enterprise Group Facility Restoration Subsidy for a seafood processing company by creating false contracts and estimates and inflating construction costs. On September 16, 2025, the Sendai District Court sentenced him to one year in prison (with a three-year suspension of sentence) for violating the Act on Proper Execution of Budget related to Subsidies, etc. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Items 2 and 3 of the Act.

The representative director of Suzuki Construction Co., Ltd. buried approximately 12.93 tons of concrete waste on the premises of Izumo Taisha Hakodate Church Chiba Sogo Kokukyo in Wakaba-ku, Chiba City, between late July and early August of Reiwa 1 (2019), without any statutory exemption. Based on this fact, the Chiba District Court sentenced the corporation to a fine of 5 million yen and the representative director to two years of imprisonment (with a three-year probation) on May 27, Reiwa 4 (2022), for violations of the Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law. It is recognized that this constitutes a violation under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3, and Paragraph 3 of the same law.

Yoneyama Kiso Kogyo Co., Ltd. was found to have burned approximately 34.2 kilograms of waste wood and other materials on its premises in Narita City on October 3, 2019, between 9:00 and 9:57 a.m., without a statutory exemption. Based on this fact, the Sakura Summary Court issued a summary order on September 8, 2020, under case number Reiwa 2 (i) No. 200, imposing a fine of 500,000 yen for violations of the Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law. This is recognized as corresponding to Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3, and Paragraph 3 of the law.

Wall Corporation, its representative director, and one employee received summary orders on June 13, 2025, from Nagoya Summary Court for violating the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions (Law No. 57 of 1976). The corporation was fined 1 million yen, and the representative director and the employee were each fined 500,000 yen. The penalties have been finalized. This corresponds to Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Building Business Act.

Kabu-shiki Kaisha Fukujyu Kensetsu concealed income by recording fictitious outsourcing expenses over three fiscal years from September 1, 2020, to August 31, 2023, thereby avoiding corporate and local corporate taxes. On October 17, 2025, the Nara District Court sentenced the company to fines for violations of the Corporate Tax Act and the Local Corporate Tax Act, and the sentence was finalized. This is recognized as applicable under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the law.

The former representative director and former director of the company were convicted of violating the Construction Business Act by conspiring with a city employee to obtain confidential information about the estimated price for a restricted competitive bidding process for a plumbing construction project in Ichinoseki City. They used this information to have the company bid and win the contract through fraudulent means, thereby impairing the fairness of the public bidding process. The former representative director was sentenced to 10 months in prison with a three-year suspension, and the former director to 1 year in prison with a three-year suspension, with their sentences finalized. This conduct is recognized as corresponding to items 2 and 3 of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act.

Kokudo Kensetsu Co., Ltd. entered into a construction contract exceeding the amount specified in the government ordinance with the prime contractor for a factory new construction project in Nara City, Nara Prefecture, despite not holding the permit for a specified construction business as stipulated in Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Act. This is recognized as corresponding to Item 7 of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

K-Next Corporation contracted for construction work exceeding the scope of minor construction as defined by the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act, in violation of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Item 2, Paragraph 2, Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

Gouriki Corporation entered into subcontracting contracts exceeding the specified amount with entities not holding a construction business license under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, in multiple private projects. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 6 and Paragraph 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Asia Corporation engaged in private construction work within Tokyo exceeding the amount specified in the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act without holding the required license under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Item 2, and Paragraph 3 of the same Act.

Katsushika Garage Co., Ltd. engaged in multiple private construction projects exceeding the amount specified in the Enforcement Order for the Construction Business Act without holding the license required under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Items 2 and 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Murakami Corporation engaged in multiple private construction projects exceeding the amount specified in the Enforcement Order for the Construction Business Act without holding the permit required under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Item 2, and Paragraph 3 of the same Act.

Tokyo Gas Communications Corporation assigned individuals who do not meet qualification requirements as supervising engineers at multiple private construction sites in Tokyo, in violation of Article 26, Paragraph 5 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 and Paragraph 3 of the same Act.

Conducto.r. engaged in multiple private construction projects exceeding the amount specified in the Enforcement Order for the Construction Business Act without having the permit required under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 2, Item 2, and Paragraph 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Kanehira Limited Liability Company entered into a subcontract agreement exceeding the amount specified in the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act without holding a specific construction business license in public works within Tokyo, violating Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 and Paragraph 3 of the same Act.

Kartos Hongo Co., Ltd. violated Article 26, Paragraph 1 of the Building Business Act by assigning an unqualified person as the chief engineer at a construction site ordered by Fujieda City. This is considered to fall under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the same Act, and also to be subject to Paragraph 3 of Article 28.

Yomachi Construction Co., Ltd. violated Article 26, Paragraph 1 of the Building Business Act by assigning individuals without a direct and permanent employment relationship as chief engineers to two projects commissioned by Mihara Village.

Kuhou Kogyo Co., Ltd. was the primary subcontractor responsible for excavation work at a new condominium construction site in Fukuoka City. An employee of the company, who oversees safety management and supervises workers, failed to perform the duties required of a work supervisor under the law, such as deciding on work methods and directly supervising work, on June 15, 2023. This resulted in a fatal accident involving a worker. On June 18, 2025, the Fukuoka Summary Court sentenced the company to a fine of 200,000 yen for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and the employee to a fine of 500,000 yen for violations of the same law and for professional negligence resulting in death. The case falls under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

A, who was the representative director and overall manager of the construction company at the time, concealed income by recording fictitious subcontracting expenses and filed false corporate and local corporate tax returns with the Suita Tax Office over three fiscal years, causing the statutory deadlines to pass and avoiding approximately 90.3 million yen in corporate tax and approximately 8.2 million yen in local corporate tax. Additionally, A recorded fictitious taxable purchases over three tax periods, filed false consumption and local consumption tax returns, and avoided paying approximately 32 million yen in consumption tax and approximately 9 million yen in local consumption tax, receiving a total refund of approximately 2,134,700 yen through false claims for intermediate tax refunds and transfer discounts. A was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment with a 3-year suspended sentence for violations of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, the Act on Regulation of Commercial Transactions, the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, and the Local Tax Act. The sentence was finalized on December 12, Reiwa 6, and the construction company was fined 34 million yen, with the fine also finalized on the same day.

Erepa Corporation contracted construction work without the required license, violating Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, for projects with contract amounts exceeding the threshold specified in the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act.

The former representative director of Kabushiki Kaisha Sanryu was involved in a bid-rigging scheme for a construction project ordered by Sasa Town. He obtained information about the minimum bid price through a former employee of Horiuchi-gumi via the former mayor of Sasa Town, enabling the company to win the bid. On July 14, 2025, he was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with a three-year probation by the Nagasaki District Court under Articles 96-6(1) and 60 of the Penal Code, and the sentence was finalized on the same day. This conduct is recognized as falling under Item 3 of Article 28(1) of the Construction Business Act.

Daiwa Giken Co., Ltd. received an order for the 'Employee Dormitory Air Conditioner Installation Cold Climate Specification Update Work' (excluding tax 13.5 million yen) from a construction company despite not holding a construction business license for piping work. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act.

The former representative director of Haramoto Industrial Co., Ltd. participated in a competitive bidding process for electrical work ordered by Sasa Town, and, through a former employee of Horiuchi-gumi via the former mayor of Sasa Town, was informed of a price close to the minimum limit price, enabling the company to win the bid. On July 14, 2025, the Nagasaki District Court sentenced him to one year of imprisonment with a three-year suspended sentence under Articles 96-6(1) and 60 of the Penal Code, and the sentence was finalized on July 29, 2025. This is recognized as corresponding to Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

The person engaged in the construction industry contracted construction work for the 2025 Japan International Expo without the required permit, in violation of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act, and the contract amount exceeded the amount specified in Enforcement Order for the Construction Business Act, Article 1-2.

A shareholder holding more than 5% of issued shares of Yushin Construction Co., Ltd. burned approximately 99.7 kilograms of wood waste on the company's premises in Inno, Asahi City, Chiba Prefecture, around 10:00 a.m. on October 2, 2019, without a legal exemption. Based on this fact, the Sawara Summary Court issued a summary order on April 7, 2020, under case number Reiwa 2 (i) No. 4, sentencing the shareholder to a fine of 300,000 yen for violating the Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law. This is recognized as applicable under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 and Paragraph 3 of the law.

Iida Komuten engaged in private construction work within Nara City, Nara Prefecture, without obtaining a construction business license as required by Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This is recognized as corresponding to Item 2, Paragraph 2 of Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

Seike Shoji Co., Ltd. engaged in private construction work within Higashi-Osaka City, Osaka Prefecture, without obtaining a construction business license as required by Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. The work involved projects other than minor construction work specified in the proviso of Article 3 of the Act and Article 1-2, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act. This is recognized as corresponding to Item 2, Paragraph 2 of Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.