2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The plaintiff is a construction company that registered civil engineering work on June 1, 200.

B. On September 14, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition of the suspension of business by applying Article 83 Subparag. 2 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 2011) on the ground that “the Plaintiff fails to meet the capital among the standards for registration of construction business as a result of the fact-finding survey on construction business in 2010” (from October 1, 2011 to December 31, 201).

(hereinafter referred to as "first disposition"). (c)

On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff received a report on the examination of financial management status (hereinafter “the report on the examination of financial management status of this case”) through A Company to the effect that the financial management status diagnosis is conducted by LIM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”), and submitted it to the Defendant on May 25, 2012.

After the end of the periodic reporting deadline, the Plaintiff reported on November 16, 2012 to the Korea Construction Association (which is an institution that receives reports on the registration of construction business and confirms the details of the report) on the registration of construction business.

E. The Korea Construction Association shall examine the Plaintiff’s eligibility for the Plaintiff’s registration of construction business.

As stated in paragraph (1), the certificate of balance of deposit worth KRW 700 million (hereinafter “certificate of balance of deposit in this case”) submitted as a supporting document is forged, and the examination report of the financial status in this case is also false documents. The Defendant confirmed that “the Plaintiff’s report of the examination of the financial status in this case is also false documents,” and notified the Defendant of the result of the examination that “the Plaintiff’s non-performing 700,000,000 won (non-performing 700,000,000 won (non-submission of a regular deposit) was below the actual capital registration standard when deducting the Plaintiff’s total amount of

F. The Defendant, on February 4, 2013, issued an administrative disposition to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was subject to an administrative disposition that falls short of capital among the registration standards within the last three years, but is again identical.