Directive Records in Japan

本多工芸は、過去にも直近５事業年度の建設業法第１１条第２項に規定する書類を毎事業年度経過後４月以内に届出せず岡山県から指導を受けているにもかかわらず、再度、大幅に届出期限を超過して届出しており、改善が見られない。 このことは、建設業法第１１条第２項に違反するため、同法第２８条第１項に基づき指示処分とする。

株式会社杉山重機の役員は、同社の業務に関し、令和７年６月12日、静岡県内の工事現場において、同社の安全管理等の統括管理者が、労働者に移動はしごを用いて作業を行わせるにあたり、移動はしごの滑り止め装置の取り付け、その他の転位を防止するために必要な措置を講じず、その他の機械、器具、その他設備による危険を防止するために必要な措置を講じなかった。 この件について、浜松簡易裁判所は令和８年４月13日に貴社及び貴社の役員に対し、労働安全衛生法違反に基づきそれぞれ罰金20万円の略式命令を行い、これが確定した。 このことは建設業法第28条第１項第３号に該当するものと認められる。

１ 令和５年１１月２４日、菊乃関工業（株）は、宇部市内の河川災害復旧工事において、労働者が休業６ヵ月の見込みとなる負傷をしたにも関わらず、事実と異なる内容を記載した労働者死傷病報告を、令和５年１２月６日宇部労働基準監督署長に提出し、虚偽の報告を行った。【第１】 また、令和６年２月２８日、宇部労働基準監督署の立入り調査の際、労働基準監督官に対し、災害を隠蔽する目的で虚偽の陳述を行った。【第２】 ２ 令和７年１２月９日、宇部簡易裁判所は【第１】が労働安全衛生法第１００条 第１項、労働安全衛生規則第９７条第１項、【第２】が同法第９１条第１項に違反するとして、菊乃関工業（株）及び前代表取締役に対し、それぞれ罰金２０万円の略式命令を科し、令和７年１２月２５日に刑が確定した。 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。

株式会社田中興業は、令和５年６月30日に懲役刑に処せられた者を、令和７年２月28日まで貴社の役員に就任させていたことにより、建設業法第８条第12号に定める許可要件を欠く状態になったにもかかわらず、建設業の営業を行っていた。 また、この役員の辞任に係る変更届を、退任から30日以内に提出しなかった。 このことは、建設業法第８条第12号及び同法第11条第１項に違反し、同法第28条第１項本文に該当するものと認められる。

伊東商事は、静岡県内の民間工事において、建設業法第３条第１項の許可を受けていないにもかかわらず、同法施行令第１条の２第１項で定める軽微な工事の範囲を超えて、請負契約を締結した。 このことは、建設業法第３条第１項に違反し、同法第28条第２項第２号に該当するものと認められる。

澤田工業は、静岡県内の民間工事において、建設業法第３条第１項の許可を受けていないにもかかわらず、同法施行令第１条の２第１項で定める軽微な工事の範囲を超えて、請負契約を締結した。 このことは、建設業法第３条第１項に違反し、同法第28条第２項第２号に該当するものと認められる。

株式会社ATSUMI創建は、静岡県内の民間工事において、建設業法第３条第１項の許可を受けていないにもかかわらず、同法施行令第１条の２第１項で定める軽微な工事の範囲を超えて、請負契約を締結した。 このことは、建設業法第３条第１項に違反し、同法第28条第２項第２号に該当するものと認められる。

株式会社宇野興業が請け負った市原市姉崎海岸地先の工場敷地内に所在する食堂撤去工事において、令和５年２月１日に、コンクリート圧砕機を用いて建物の解体作業を行う際、労働者が旋回する同圧砕機のアタッチメントと接触し、当該労働者は職場復帰が絶たれる重傷を負った。 運転中の同圧砕機に接触することにより労働者に危険が生ずるおそれがあったにもかかわらず、誘導者を配置せず、当該労働者を同圧砕機の旋回範囲内に立ち入らせ、もって機械による危険を防止するための必要な措置を講じなかったことから、労働安全衛生法に基づき、株式会社宇野興業及び現場代理人であった当該業者の従業員が３０万円の罰金刑に処せられた。 このことは建設業法第２８条第１項第３号に該当する。

令和５年（２０２３年）７月２０日、福岡県小郡市の建設工事現場において、小松興業有限会社の労働者が、就業中に左足を捻挫する労働事故が発生した。 この件に関し、当該労働者が４日以上休業したため、所轄の久留米労働基準監督署長に対し、遅延なく、労働者死傷病報告書を提出しなければならないのに、同報告書を提出しなかったことで、同社及び同社代表取締役は、法令に定める報告をしなかったとして、久留米簡易裁判所から労働安全衛生法違反により、それぞれ罰金２０万円の略式命令を受け、令和７年（２０２５年）１２月２３日、その刑が確定した。

株式会社中造園の経営業務管理責任者である者及び、営業所技術者である者２名が、他社へ出向の上、他社の工事の現場代理人として配置され、当該工事に関する業務に従事していた事実が認められた。当該工事期間は株式会社中造園での職務に専ら従事していたとは認められないことから、建設業法第７条第１号及び第２号に違反すると認められる。 このことは、建設業法第２８条第１項本文に該当すると認められる。

令和６年11月22日、栃木県河内郡上三川町内の工事現場において、高さ約10メートルの上階から落下した鉄パイプが従事者の背中に当たり、休業見込み６か月を要する左腰椎横突起骨折等の負傷をし、翌日から４日以上休業した。 しかし、令和７年４月22日、株式会社サヤデンの代表取締役はこれについて、川越労働基準監督署長に対し、「サヤデン工場内（埼玉県川越市）で工事の段取り中、中２階の作業者が鉄パイプを落とし、下にいた作業者（受傷者）の背中部分に当たった」旨、虚偽の労働者死傷病報告を提出した。 これにより、株式会社サヤデン及び同社代表取締役は、労働安全衛生法第100条第1項、第120条第５号及び第122条により川越簡易裁判所から各々罰金20万円の判決を受け、令和８年１月30日に当該判決が確定した。 このことは、建設業法第28条第１項第３号に該当する。

令和７年10月21日から22日にかけ、一般国道299号歩道内において水道管敷設のための床掘作業中、ＮＴＴの埋設管及び通信ケーブルを破損した。これにより、周辺のＡＴＭ、電話及びインターネット回線に通信障害が発生し、全回線の仮復旧が完了したのは10月23日午前０時10分頃となった。 このことは、建設業法第28条第１項第１号に該当する。

令和６年８月６日に群馬県邑楽郡板倉町泉野地内で施工していたシーピー化成株式会社首都圏成型工業建設計画において、労働者Ａが芝の荷降ろし作業を行っていたところ、崩れてきた芝をよけようとした際に左足首を骨折し、４日以上の休業を要することとなったにもかかわらず、同社代表取締役大澤勝彦は、労働者Ａに対し労働者災害補償保険を使用させず、また、太田労働基準監督署に対して労働者死傷病報告を提出しなかったものである。 これにより同社及び代表取締役は労働安全衛生法及び労働安全衛生規則違反により、館林簡易裁判所から法人２０万円、個人２０万円の罰金の判決を受け、令和８年２月２０日に確定した。 このことは、建設業法第２８条第１項第３号に該当する。

E-First Corporation assigned a site engineer as the chief engineer in multiple construction projects requiring the appointment of a dedicated chief engineer, in violation of Article 26, Paragraph 3 of the Building Business Act. This is deemed to correspond to the provisions of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

Manya Kensetsu Co., Ltd. and one of its employees received summary orders (each a fine of 200,000 yen) from Numata Summary Court on December 25, 2025, for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. The violations relate to an incident on March 13, 2025, during a new construction project in Numata City, Gunma Prefecture, where one worker fell from an eave and was injured. Despite the risk of falling and danger to the worker, the company did not install barriers, handrails, or coverings at the site to prevent labor accidents, and allowed the worker to use the eave as a work platform while removing protective sheets. This is recognized as corresponding to Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

According to documents submitted by Kitaoka Komuten Co., Ltd., it was found that for private sector general construction projects requiring the appointment of a dedicated chief engineer under Article 26, Paragraph 3 of the Construction Business Act and Article 27 of the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act, the company had appointed a dedicated technical engineer of the office as the chief engineer, as stipulated in Item 2 of Article 7 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 26, Paragraph 3 of the Act and falls under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the same Act. Note: Since this violation occurred before the enforcement of the current Construction Business Act on December 13, Reiwa 6, the term used is 'dedicated technical engineer of the office' under the old law, not 'office technical engineer'.

On June 13, 2024, in Itabashi Ward, Tokyo, during air conditioner replacement work at a private residence, Worker B of Corporation A, along with two workers from the prime contractor Corporation Frontier Express, was working on the exterior wall of the residence. They had set up a five-meter ladder, climbed it, and were cutting the piping of an air conditioner at a height of 5.4 meters when they fell from the ladder. As a result, they sustained skull fracture, brain contusion, spinal injury, and experienced consciousness disturbance and paralysis of limbs. Consequently, Corporation Frontier Express was sentenced to a fine of 200,000 yen by the Tokyo Summary Court under Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, with the judgment finalized on December 12, 2025. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Zero Home Design (Ltd.) has repeatedly failed to submit documents required under Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Building Business Act within four months after each fiscal year over the past five fiscal years, despite being previously instructed by Okayama Prefecture. The company has again submitted the documents well beyond the deadline, with no improvement observed. This constitutes a violation of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Building Business Act, and an order to instruct is issued pursuant to Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

The respondent failed to register the land sale with the designated distribution system and did not report the status of their work to the client at least once a week under the exclusive agency agreement. Additionally, after the agency agreement ended, they posted advertisements for the property online despite being unable to conduct transactions regarding the property. This violates Articles 32 and 34-2, Paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Act, and falls under Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

The respondent violated the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and the Act on Regulation of Residential Land and Building Transactions by failing to submit change notifications when their employment status changed, and by failing to meet the required number of licensed real estate agents at multiple offices, as well as neglecting necessary measures at those offices.

The respondent received a request to mediate the purchase of land and buildings, accepted it, and commenced mediation activities. However, upon concluding the mediation contract, they did not promptly deliver the mediation agreement to the client.

The construction company submitted false information in their business evaluation applications, including overstating contract amounts for multiple public works projects and falsely categorizing demolition work as general building work, with the intent to misrepresent their business performance.

Seibi Kogyo Co., Ltd. was fined on April 17, 2025, for violating the Building Industry Act Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3, by failing to implement collapse prevention and entry prohibition measures specified in the work plan during demolition work at Nishi-Shimbashi 1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo on June 16, 2022. The violations also contravened the Industrial Safety and Health Act Article 21, Paragraph 1, and the Industrial Safety and Health Regulations (Ministry of Labour Ordinance No. 32 of 1972), Article 517-14, Paragraph 1.

Kōnan Construction Co., Ltd. did not submit the necessary notification within two weeks of the fact occurrence, despite the fact that the site engineer was not permanently assigned and the standards listed in Article 7, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act were no longer met. This is recognized as a violation of Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the Construction Business Act and falls under the provisions of Article 28, Paragraph 1, main text of the same Act.

On May 16, 2025, Osato Construction Co., Ltd. and its representative director were each sentenced to a fine by the Miyazaki Summary Court for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act related to a fatal accident during a house fence installation project in Miyazaki City, Miyazaki Prefecture. Their sentences were finalized on January 14, 2026. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

専任の宅地建物取引士が平成30年10月18日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和5年5月19日に至るまで約4年7か月経過した。

Endo Construction Co., Ltd. is engaged in construction work and was responsible for construction and safety management at the site of the 2024 prefectural road bridge maintenance (disaster-related) work commissioned by the Omachi Construction Office, Nagano Prefecture. Employee A, who is a site manager, was responsible for safety management at the site. On May 27, 2025, at the construction site within the general prefectural road Uruga-Ikeda Line, Worker B was instructed to perform shoulder repair work using a drag shovel. The site was a shoulder where guardrails had been removed for construction, and there was a risk of the shovel overturning or falling, which could endanger the worker. A guide was supposed to be positioned to direct the shovel to prevent accidents, but during the incident, no guiding was provided, and necessary measures to prevent danger from machinery were not taken. As a result, Endo Construction Co., Ltd. and A received summary orders imposing a fine of 200,000 yen each for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and their penalties were finalized. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和4年3月16日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和7年4月3日に至るまで約3年1か月経過した。

The Consumer Affairs Agency ordered Keigo Sakamoto, the representative director of Pureas, to cease certain business activities for three months from March 17, 2026, to June 16, 2026, based on Article 15-2, Paragraph 1 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations, including the prohibition of engaging in new business activities within the scope of the business suspension order (including serving as an officer responsible for such business in the corporation conducting the business).

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和2年11月4日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和6年8月28日に至るまで約3年10か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和3年1月12日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和5年8月29日に至るまで約2年8か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和2年2月19日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和6年12月11日に至るまで約4年10か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和5年2月21日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和6年3月25日に至るまで約1年1か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和2年1月13日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和5年9月18日に至るまで約3年8か月経過した。

専任の宅地建物取引士が令和3年8月17日から不足したにもかかわらず、宅地建物取引業法第31条の3第3項に定める期間内に必要な措置を講じないまま、令和7年4月8日に至るまで約3年７か月経過した。

Kuraishi Waterproof Industry Co., Ltd. and its representative director received summary fines from Takahashi Summary Court on February 13, Reiwa 8, for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act related to their business. Their sentences have been finalized. This constitutes a violation under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act, and an instruction disposition is issued based on Article 28, Paragraph 1 of that Act.

Kimae Construction Co., Ltd. submitted a construction business license renewal application on February 4, 2021, without submitting a notification of change as required by Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act for a director who had already assumed office on June 20, 2011. Additionally, the application lacked the director's details in the attached documents, such as the list of officers and the statement of address and date of birth of the license applicant (corporate officer, etc.). This was revealed by a notification of change regarding officers' appointment received on January 29, 2026. This violation contravenes Articles 5, 6, and 11 of the Construction Business Act, and an instruction order is issued based on Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

Daido Construction Co., Ltd. and its representative director were each issued a summary order of fine by Takahashi Summary Court on February 13, 2026, for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act related to their business operations. Their sentences have been finalized. This constitutes a violation under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act, and an instruction disposition is issued based on Article 28, Paragraph 1 of that Act.

The respondent engaged in acting as a landlord agent for a building lease agreement in December of Reiwa 2. In this work, (1) they failed to include the details of registered rights on the property in the written explanation required by Article 35 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions, only listing the type as 'mortgage' without describing the rights' contents; (2) they only included provisions related to contract termination for mid-term cancellation in the explanation and did not include provisions related to breach or penalty cancellations. These actions violate Article 35, Paragraph 1, Item 1 and Item 8 of the Act respectively.

The respondent entered into a land-only sales contract as a seller in March 2022 and incorrectly stated that the land was incomplete in the document required by the Building Lots and Buildings Transaction Business Act.

The construction company loaded liquefied petroleum gas onto its work vehicle and transported it within Kitami City. The loading and transportation methods did not comply with technical standards prescribed by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry regulations, resulting in violations of the High Pressure Gas Safety Act and Liquefied Petroleum Gas Safety Regulations. On February 9, 2026, a summary order was issued by the Kitami Summary Court, resulting in a fine of 100,000 yen. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

The respondent, in February of Reiwa 6 (2024), entered into exclusive brokerage agreements for the sale of two buildings at the request of the owner. In both cases, they failed to include whether an intermediary for building condition surveys was involved in the documents (brokerage contracts) as required by Article 34-2 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions, and did not register the transactions with the Designated Distribution System. These actions violate Article 34-2, paragraph 1, item 4, and paragraph 5, respectively, of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

On July 17, 2024, at a house demolition site in Oita Prefecture, the company failed to implement necessary safety measures to prevent falls of workers performing gas welding on steel frames at a height of approximately 3.3 meters on the second floor of a house. Specifically, they did not install protective netting or require workers to use fall prevention equipment, despite the risk of falling and the difficulty of installing barriers. The company and its representative director were each issued a summary order of a 200,000 yen fine by the Oita Summary Court for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, with the sentence finalized on December 17, 2024. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Yamashita Manufacturing Co., Ltd. entered into a subcontract agreement for construction work directly commissioned by a client without holding a license for specified construction business, and the total subcontract amount exceeded the amount specified by government ordinance under Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Building Business Act. This is recognized as a violation of Article 16, Item 2, of the same Act and falls under Article 28, Paragraph 1.

Yūgō Kaisha Egg entered into subcontracting agreements exceeding the statutory amount without holding a specific construction business license for construction work directly commissioned from the client. This is considered a violation of Article 16, Item 1, and falls under Article 28, Paragraph 1, of the Construction Business Act.

Kosei Industry Co., Ltd. has previously been instructed by Okayama Prefecture for failing to submit documents required under Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Construction Business Act within four months after each fiscal year over the past five fiscal years. Despite this, the company has again submitted the documents well beyond the deadline, with no improvement observed. This constitutes a violation of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Construction Business Act, and an order to instruct is issued pursuant to Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.

In April of Reiwa 6 (2024), engaged in brokerage activities for building lease agreements. In this activity, failed to have a registered real estate transaction agent sign the document (lease agreement) as required by Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 37, Paragraph 3 of the Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities for a building lease between landlord A and tenant B in December of Reiwa 4. During this activity, they provided incorrect explanations regarding the location of deposit offices, and mistakenly included pre-amendment terminology such as 'Real Estate Transaction Supervisor,' 'Transaction Supervisor,' and 'Transaction Supervisor Certificate' in the document (Important Matters Explanation) prescribed by Article 35 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions. These actions violate Article 35-2, Item 2, and Article 65, Paragraph 1, Item 2, of the Act respectively.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities for a building lease between landlord A and tenant B in December of Reiwa 4. During this activity, they failed to explain about deposit places, did not have a licensed real estate transaction agent sign the lease document as required by law, and mistakenly used pre-legal reform terminology such as "Real Estate Transaction Supervisor," "Transaction Supervisor," and "Transaction Supervisor Certificate" on the disclosure document. These actions violated specific provisions of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and the Real Estate Transaction Act.

The respondent engaged in mediation services for the sale of land between Seller A and Buyer B in March 2022. During this process, they published an advertisement on an internet real estate information site for a 'newly built detached house,' listing both the land and the building before building confirmation was obtained. They also provided an incorrect statement in the 'Overview of security measures for deposits, etc.' section of the document required by Article 35 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions, indicating that the land was an unfinished property. Furthermore, after the contract was concluded and the land could no longer be sold to parties other than Buyer B, the advertisement continued to be posted for at least five days. These actions violate Article 33 and Article 65, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

In December of Reiwa 2 (2020), mediation services were conducted for the leasing of a building. In this process, a real estate transaction specialist did not sign the document (lease agreement) required by Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 37, Paragraph 3 of the Act.

On March 9, 2025, at the site of the auxiliary public road reconstruction project (National Route Collaboration) No. 19 (Koizumi No. 3 culvert work) in Azuma District, Higashi Azuma Town, Azuma District, workers including Worker A were used to install approximately 1.07 tons of U-shaped gutters. Worker A was assigned to operate a mobile crane with a lifting capacity of 2.9 tons without possessing a licensed crane operator's license or having completed the small mobile crane operation skills training, and there was no statutory exemption. As a result, violations of the Labor Safety and Health Regulations and the Crane Safety Regulations were identified, leading to a formal document submission. The Tochinojo Summary Court sentenced a fine on January 24, 2026, which was finalized.

Maki Industries Co., Ltd. violated Article 27-23, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act by directly accepting demolition work from Kadogawa Town without undergoing the management review related to demolition work as stipulated in that paragraph. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Construction Business Act.

The respondent conducted internet advertising in February of Reiwa 7 (2025) for four properties located in Ota Ward, Suginami Ward, and Setagaya Ward, Tokyo. In this activity, they failed to accurately display the burden related to private roads and engaged in conduct that misled viewers of the advertisement into believing the content was factual, thereby impairing fair trade practices. This constitutes a violation of Article 65, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

Nonai Glass Co., Ltd. entered into a subcontracting agreement exceeding the scope of minor construction defined in the Enforcement Order of the Construction Business Act, despite not having obtained the permit required under Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of the main text of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act.

On May 29, 2023, at a construction site in Oita Prefecture, an employee of N.S.O. Ltd. sustained an injury or illness during work and was absent for more than four days. Despite this, the company and its representative failed to submit the required worker injury and illness report to the Oita Labor Standards Inspection Office by October 14, 2025, as mandated by law. They each received a summary order of a 200,000 yen fine from the Oita Summary Court for violating the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and the sentence was finalized. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

1. Delay in notification of business closure (violation of Article 12, Item 5 of the Act): The business owner failed to notify the closure of the electrical contracting business (specified) within 30 days after closing. The business was closed on October 1, 2023, but the notification was only submitted on November 20, 2025, over two years later. 2. Deficiency in renewal permit application (violations of Article 5, Items 5 and 6 of the Act): The application for renewal did not include the name of the designated technician (current office technician) as required, nor the construction industry for which the permit was sought. Between the renewal application submitted on September 12, 2023, and the permit issued on November 10, 2023, the designated technician for the electrical contracting business (specified) was absent, yet the renewal permit was granted without correction. 3. Contracting without permit for non-minor work (violation of Article 3 of the Act): The business engaged in non-minor electrical work after the business was closed on October 1, 2023, despite not having a valid permit.

On June 20, 2024, at a steel frame demolition project in Kamiogi 1-chome, Suginami City, Tokyo, a concrete block that was part of the ceiling unexpectedly fell during welding work on corrugated sheets on the third-floor roof, striking a worker on the first floor. As a result, Uchida Construction Industry Co., Ltd. and its representative director were each fined 200,000 yen by the Tokyo Summary Court for violations of Article 21, Paragraph 2, and Article 61, Paragraph 2, of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. The court ruling was finalized on November 18, 2025. This incident falls under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

On June 30, 2025, during a management review based on that date, false documents were attached and a false application was submitted.

On November 23, 2023, an employee of Tokuban Co., Ltd. fell from a ladder and sustained injuries requiring more than four days of leave during dismantling and installation work of ducts on another company's premises. As a result, the former director (who was a director at the time of the injury) and the company failed to submit the Worker Injury and Illness Report to the Tokushima Labor Standards Inspection Office without delay by December 22, 2024, and did not report as required by law. Consequently, both the company and the former director received summary fines for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, with the company's penalty finalized on December 3, 2025, and the former director's penalty finalized on December 4, 2025.

The construction company placed individuals who do not meet qualification requirements as chief engineers on projects requiring the appointment of a chief engineer under Article 26, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. This is deemed to fall under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

On May 16, 2023, at a new construction project in Shinagawa Ward, Tokyo, Shinagaki Co., Ltd. used a pile driver exceeding the maximum allowable load, causing it to overturn and fall onto nearby vehicles. A worker inside a vehicle was injured when struck. As a result, Shinagaki Co., Ltd. was fined 200,000 yen by the Tokyo Summary Court for violating Article 20 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and the judgment was finalized on June 24, 2025. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities related to a real estate sales contract for land and buildings concluded in June 2025. During this process, violations of the Act on Real Estate Transactions occurred, including failure to provide registration documentation to the seller, deleting the property from the REINS database before contract completion, failing to report higher purchase offers from other prospective buyers, and causing damages to the seller by canceling the contract with a deposit refund after being informed of a higher offer. These violations correspond to specific provisions of the Act on Real Estate Transactions and the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations.

The respondent engaged in brokerage activities related to a building lease agreement concluded in July 2023. The violations include: (1) incorrect recording of the building's location and contract period in the document required by Article 35; (2) falsely indicating the existence of provisions for damages or penalty fees in the important matters explanation document; (3) incorrect recording of the building's location in the document specified by Article 37, Paragraph 2; (4) delivering the lease agreement to the tenant approximately one year after the contract was established. These actions violate the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations and the Real Estate Transaction Act, specifically Articles 65, Paragraph 1, Item 2, and 37, Paragraph 2, Item 1.

Marutomo Kaihatsu Corporation violated Article 26, Paragraph 3 of the Construction Business Act by assigning persons who must be dedicated chief engineers to multiple sites, including 15 private construction projects in Iwata City, Shizuoka Prefecture, contrary to legal requirements. This is recognized as falling under Item 2, Paragraph 1, Article 28 of the same Act.

The subject business operator submitted a false worker injury report to the Odate Labor Standards Inspection Office, claiming that an injury occurred in their warehouse, despite their worker having fallen from a ladder at a construction site in Akita Prefecture on May 27, 2022, and having fractured their right heel. The operator and involved employees received summary fines for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act on June 6, 2025, and the penalties were finalized. This is recognized as applicable under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Falsification of the specific self-inspection record form related to drag shovels occurred. As a result, Iitaka Block Industry Co., Ltd. and its representative director were each sentenced to a fine of 200,000 yen by the Tokyo Summary Court for violations of Article 45, Paragraph 2 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, with the judgment finalized on July 9, 2025. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

O.D.A. Corporation applied for a construction business license on August 18, 2020, and received a general construction business license on November 11, 2020. Subsequently, because the technical officer at the main office could not be permanently stationed there, they hired a new technical officer. However, they failed to submit a notification of change as required by Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the Construction Business Act. This constitutes a violation of Article 7, Paragraph 1, Item 2 and Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the Act, and is recognized as corresponding to the provisions of Article 28, Paragraph 1, main text of the same Act.

Kyo-sei Denki Co., Ltd. failed to submit a worker injury and illness report to the competent Labor Standards Inspection Office Chief following a work-related injury resulting in more than four days of leave that occurred during electrical equipment construction in Sodegaura City, Chiba Prefecture, on March 30, 2023. Regarding this matter, the company and one of its Chiba branch managers were each sentenced to a fine of 200,000 yen for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act by the Kisarazu Summary Court on August 29, 2025, and the sentences were finalized. This is recognized as corresponding to Item 3, Paragraph 1, Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

Between October 30, 2013, and December 15, 2025, an individual registered as a technical staff at the Katsuragi Construction Company was found to have served as a licensed real estate transaction agent requiring exclusive appointment at another company with a real estate license. During this period, it is not recognized that the individual was solely engaged in duties at Katsuragi Construction Company. Therefore, it is considered to violate Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Building Business Act for at least the permitted construction types of paving, painting, waterproofing, interior finishing, and water supply facilities. This constitutes a violation of the main text of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Building Business Act.

Hayami Heavy Machinery Co., Ltd. and its site supervisor were each fined 200,000 yen for violating the Industrial Safety and Health Act after failing to take necessary safety measures at a demolition site, where workers were exposed to fall hazards from a height of over 2 meters without appropriate fall prevention equipment. The fines were finalized on September 27, 2025. This is recognized as applicable under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

K.K. K.Y.K. submitted documents under Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the law that contained false information regarding the sales figures of its side businesses. This constitutes a violation of that article. Additionally, using financial statements that falsely reported side business sales figures, K.K. K.Y.K. applied for a management review on July 25, 2024, with the review date set as that day, and obtained a management review result notification based on this application. Using this notification, the company secured qualification to participate in bids in Miyagi Prefecture. This violates Articles 27-24, Paragraph 3, and 27-26, Paragraph 3 of the law, and falls under Item 2 of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the law.

The representative director of Nagata Construction Co., Ltd. was convicted of violating the Industrial Safety and Health Act for failing to take necessary safety measures, such as requiring workers at a demolition site in Kashiwa City, Nara Prefecture, to use fall prevention equipment. The conviction was finalized. This is recognized as applicable under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Minamoto Construction Workshop Co., Ltd. and its employees received summary orders of fine from Kurashiki Summary Court on November 6, Reiwa 7, for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act related to their business operations, and their sentences have been finalized. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act, and an instruction disposition is issued based on Article 28, Paragraph 1 of that Act.

FT Solution Co., Ltd. contracted for painting work in March of Reiwa 7 (2025), violating Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act by exceeding the scope of minor construction as defined in Enforcement Ordinance Article 1-2, Paragraph 1. This constitutes a violation of Item 2, Paragraph 2, Article 28 of the Construction Business Act.

On April 19, Reiwa 7 (2025), Hirota Construction Co., Ltd., and its representative director, were involved in an incident at a water channel construction site ordered by the prefecture, where a worker lost balance while operating a drag shovel, fell, and was crushed, resulting in death. They were found to have operated the drag shovel without assigning a guide, thereby failing to take necessary measures to prevent danger from machinery. On December 4 of the same year, they received a summary fine from Matsuyama Summary Court for violating the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and the sentence was finalized. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

The respondent, on October 24, 2022, caused a person who was not a licensed real estate transaction agent to explain important matters during the sale and purchase contract of a building located in Hiraiso 4-chome, Tarumi-ku, Kobe City. This act violates Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Real Estate Transactions.

The respondent violated Article 31-3, Paragraph 1 of the Act by failing to take necessary measures despite the absence of a dedicated real estate transaction specialist. No contractual acts were performed, no damages occurred, and corrective measures were taken. Therefore, an instruction disposition was issued based on Article 65, Paragraph 1 of the Act.

Daiseko Corporation engaged in construction work without the necessary license, entered into subcontract agreements for non-trivial work with unlicensed persons, and did not obtain the permit for specified construction business when contracting for subcontract work exceeding the statutory amount. Additionally, they assigned a person as a chief technical engineer without the required qualification and in violation of the law. These actions correspond to violations of the Construction Business Act, Article 28, Paragraph 1, Items 2 and 6.

Murakami Kensetsu Co., Ltd. was issued a summary order of a fine by the Naze Summary Court for violating the Act on Prevention of Marine Pollution and Maritime Disasters by negligently discharging fuel oil mixed in washing water into the sea area of Okuma Port, Amami City, Kagoshima Prefecture, on April 15, 2024. The penalty was finalized on January 15, 2025. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

On July 7, 2022, in the Chiba Inzai area tunnel construction (Part 1) within Funabashi City, Chiba Prefecture, the company failed to direct work according to the work plan for a boom lift. As a result, Iwamoto Corporation was fined 200,000 yen by the Ichikawa Summary Court for violating Article 20 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and the judgment was finalized on July 17, 2025. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

On January 15, 2024, Mearu Corporation was ordered to pay a fine of 300,000 yen (corporation) and 300,000 yen (individual) by the Nago Summary Court for violating the Industrial Safety and Health Act. The violation involved failing to install safety equipment for workers performing scaffolding work around the rooftop turret of a building during a private renovation project in Nago City, Okinawa Prefecture, despite it being not significantly difficult to do so given the nature of the work. This is recognized as corresponding to Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

(株)角翔 was involved in a workplace accident during demolition work, resulting in injuries to a worker. The company failed to submit a truthful worker injury report to the relevant labor standards office by the required deadline, instead submitting a false report to a different office. As a result, the company and its executive were fined 200,000 yen each for violating the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

On July 22, 2024, at the dredging work site of the Hirono Thermal Power Plant navigation channel maintenance project located at 58 Shimokitasako, Futaba-gun, Hirono Town, Fukushima Prefecture, a worker from Yugen Kaisha Sensui Sakamoto drowned during scuba diving operations at a seabed approximately 5 meters deep, receiving air from a cylinder. The company's executive director did not require the worker to wear buoyancy compensators or life jackets, nor did he carry a depth gauge or underwater watch during the operation. As a result, the company and its executive director were each fined 200,000 yen on April 25, 2025, for violations of the Labour Safety and Health Act.

Nishisei Kogyo Co., Ltd. falsely attached a corporate tax return with incorrect entries, claiming it was genuine, during a report request conducted by Nara Prefecture based on Article 31, Paragraph 1 of the Construction Business Act. Additionally, the company falsely reported that a person who was not actually a full-time employee was a full-time employee of the company. This is recognized as corresponding to Article 28, Paragraph 1, main text of the Construction Business Act.

The person responsible for business management at Haruyama Corporation was found to have notified themselves as the chief technical officer and engaged in duties appropriate for a chief technical officer during public works contracted by other companies from December 2022 to February 2023. Since they were not exclusively engaged in duties at Haruyama Corporation during this period, this constitutes a violation of Article 7, Item 1 of the Construction Business Act. This is considered to fall under the provisions of Article 28, Paragraph 1, of the same Act.

The representative director of Akaru Kogyo Co., Ltd. submitted a false workers' injury report to the Tsushima Labor Standards Inspection Office on May 31, Reiwa 6 (2024). The report falsely stated that an employee sustained injuries such as bilateral ischial tuberosity fractures after being caught between heavy machinery and a block wall at a demolition site on April 17, and that the employee was absent for more than four days. In fact, the employee fell from a truck bed while checking the tightness of a rope near Kafukumoto Street in Minami Ward, Nagoya City, and sustained injuries. The report was submitted through an employee of a tax accountant corporation unfamiliar with the facts. This act violated the Industrial Safety and Health Act, resulting in a summary order of a 100,000 yen fine to the corporation and a 100,000 yen fine to the representative director by Tsushima Summary Court, with the penalties finalized. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

The representative director of Kouei Corporation was involved in the company's operations, where workers engaged in hazardous tasks such as arc welding in indoor work areas handling welding fumes. On July 29, 2023, a specific chemical substance health examination was conducted by a physician. However, between that date and November 8, 2024, despite no legal exemption, the company failed to conduct the health examinations at the required intervals of once every six months. As a result, on May 27, 2025, Kouei Corporation and its representative director were each sentenced to a fine of 300,000 yen for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

The construction company failed to submit certain documents requested by Osaka Prefecture during a report hearing conducted under Article 31, Paragraph 1 of the Building Business Act, despite confirming their existence. The company did not submit the documents by the deadline and did not respond to repeated reminders from Osaka Prefecture after the deadline had passed.

Maeda Construction Co., Ltd. was involved in an incident on September 30, Reiwa 6 (2024), at the Ariake 6 Line crossing pipe replacement site in Azumacho, Shumushu Village, Tomamae District, where a worker was killed after being caught between a shovel bucket and a vibratory roller while operating a shovel. The company failed to prohibit workers from entering areas where contact with the operating shovel could pose a danger, such as by displaying prohibitory signs or other methods, and did not take necessary measures to prevent worker hazards. This constitutes a violation of Article 20, Item 1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. The company received a summary order of fine from the Rumoi Summary Court, and the penalty was finalized on September 27, Reiwa 7 (2025). This violation falls under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

The representative director of Marusho-gumi LLC, Yukihito Ito, was ordered to pay a fine of 300,000 yen for violating the Labor Standards Act by requiring workers to work more than the statutory hours without legal exemption from March 26, 2023, to May 25, 2023. The court's rulings were finalized on September 5, 2025, and September 10, 2025. This is recognized as applicable under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Foyu Home Co., Ltd. violated the Act on Regulation of Construction Business by entering into subcontract agreements exceeding the amount specified by government ordinance under Article 16 of the Act, despite not holding a specified construction business license. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Act. Additionally, in the construction work, the company failed to install a supervising engineer at the site as required by Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Act, instead installing a person who does not meet the qualification requirements. This is a violation of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Construction Business Act and falls under Article 28, Item 2 of the same Act.

The construction company was ordered to cease construction work by the Osaka Prefectural Governor on October 28, 2025, due to violations of the Building Standards Act (Act No. 201 of 1950), specifically Articles 6 and 8 as applied by Article 88, Paragraph 1.

Ishima Densetsu Corporation failed to prepare a contract document and allowed some subcontractors to perform work on a project ordered by Wakayama Prefecture, in violation of Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Building Business Act (Act No. 100 of 1949). Additionally, the company did not display the construction system diagram required by Article 24-8, Paragraph 4 of the Building Business Act, as applied by Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Proper Promotion of Bidding and Contracting for Public Works, in a visible location at the construction site accessible to workers and the public. Furthermore, the company failed to display the signage required by Article 40 of the Building Business Act at the construction site. These actions are recognized as violations of Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Building Business Act.

The Limited Company Maruto Souken and its officers were sentenced to a fine of 200,000 yen by the Kobe Summary Court for violations of the Industrial Safety and Health Act and the Industrial Safety and Health Regulations related to an accident at a construction site in Kakogawa City on September 12, 2024. The sentence was finalized on August 15, 2025. This constitutes a violation under Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Construction Business Act.

Kanno Real Estate Co., Ltd. entered into a subcontract agreement with a general contractor who did not have a construction business license in December of the 6th year of Reiwa (2024) for private sector contracted construction work. Furthermore, they undertook the work without possessing the necessary permits for the relevant construction types. This constitutes a violation of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Item 6 of the Construction Business Act, and also violates Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the same Act, thereby falling under the provisions of Article 28, Paragraph 1, main text of the Act.