2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On May 31, 200, the Plaintiff is a company which completed the registration of a construction business with the type of construction and engineering work business pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

B. The Ulsan-gu Office requested the Defendant to cancel the Plaintiff’s construction business registration on April 2015, when the Plaintiff failed to pay 2,016,430 won local tax, and the Defendant issued a disposition to cancel the Plaintiff’s construction business registration on July 15, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 65 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes and Article 83 Subparag. 11 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff had already violated the standards for registration of comprehensive construction business prior to the instant disposition, and did not supplement the above violation even after the disposition of business suspension was issued for seven months due to the failure to implement the corrective order. As such, the Plaintiff’s registration of construction business should be cancelled even if the instant disposition was not taken.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of the instant disposition does not have a legal interest.

B. According to Article 83 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall cancel the registration of the construction business if the construction business operator fails to meet the registration standards and fails to meet the registration standards by the end of the disposition.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in the Evidence No. 10 and Evidence No. 10, No. 3, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for the Plaintiff on January 8, 2015 (hereinafter “prior disposition”), and it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not renew the guarantee amount, which is the violation of the above disposition, within seven months from February 1, 2015, the starting date of business suspension.

However, the fact that the instant disposition was issued on July 15, 2015, prior to the expiration of the foregoing seven months, is as seen earlier. Thus, the external appearance of the instant disposition was made prior to the lapse of the said seven months.