A. On May 26, 201, the Plaintiff’s agent for on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation for the approval for use of each of the buildings listed in the table (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”), as indicated below, on May 26, 201, the Plaintiff, as a certified architect, on his/her behalf, was approved for use of each of the buildings of this case on May 14, 201, 201, when the date of approval for use of the 4th floor building as of the date of the building site construction permit as of the date of the building site construction permit as the owner of the building site for the Plaintiff’s vicarious performance, and on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation as shown below.

B. On January 17, 2013, the Defendant and Mineyang-si: (a) discovered illegal remodeling; (b) conducted a joint inspection on the instant building; and (c) discovered that the number of households of each instant building increased differently from the original construction permit (hereinafter “instant violation”).

C. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of an administrative disposition in advance that the Plaintiff sent a prior notice of the same content as the attached Form 1 in accordance with Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s performance of the field investigation and inspection for design, construction supervision, and approval for use is a cause attributable to the violation of relevant statutes.

On November 25, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the disposition was taken as shown in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in the course of conducting a field investigation, inspection, confirmation, etc. for design, construction supervision, approval for use, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 9, 12 through 15, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant statutes

A. At the time of a field investigation for the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 approval, there was no increase in the number of households at the time of a field investigation for the Plaintiff’s approval for use.