"Flammable if it catches fire" Company representative fined for submitting fake samples for flame retardant inspection
- Input
- 2025-07-31 07:00:00
- Updated
- 2025-07-31 07:00:00
Violation of the Act on the Installation and Management of Firefighting Facilities
Seoul Eastern District Court imposes fine on Geukdong Flame Retardant representative
[Financial News] A representative of a flame retardant company who tried to pass a flame retardant (fire prevention) inspection by pretending that materials brought from a factory were collected on site has been sentenced to a fine.
According to the legal community on the 30th, Seoul Eastern District Court Criminal Division 12 (Judge Kwak Yoon-kyung) sentenced Geukdong Flame Retardant representative Joo Jae-seong (62) and the corporation to a fine of 500,000 won each on the 15th for violating the Act on the Installation and Management of Firefighting Facilities.
Mr. Joo was brought to trial on charges of disguising a 'factory sample' brought from a furniture factory in Gyeonggi-do last February as if it had been directly taken from Store A in Songpa-gu and applying for a flame retardant performance inspection.
The flame retardant inspection is a procedure to check how well materials withstand fire, and samples must be taken directly from the actually installed materials. Passing the inspection with fake samples poses a risk of uncontrollable fire spread in the event of a fire.
The current Act on the Installation and Management of Firefighting Facilities Article 21, Paragraph 2 requires only on-site samples to be submitted for flame retardant performance inspection, and Article 59, Paragraph 3 of the same law stipulates that those who submit false samples in violation of this can be fined up to 3 million won.
Mr. Joo argued, "The items in question are furniture and not subject to flame retardant requirements, and the items were installed in the store as they were after flame retardant work and sampling at the factory, so it is not a case of pretending to have enhanced flame retardancy."
However, the court did not accept Mr. Joo's claim, considering that △ the problematic materials function as part of a 'wall structure' installed on the interior walls and floors of the store, separating spaces and allowing items to be displayed, and △ part of the wall structure is in the form of a cabinet according to the design, thus determining the items as flame retardant target materials (materials that must be flame retardant treated to prevent easy spread of fire).
yesji@fnnews.com Kim Yeji Reporter