업무정지처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on May 31, 2019 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Details of the disposition
The plaintiff is working for B Corporation from January 7, 1987 to August 22, 2014.
A retired construction engineer, from January 1, 2015, has served in C Co., Ltd.
B On February 13, 2018, the Corporation notified the Defendant of the details of the Plaintiff’s suspicion of illegality on November 9, 2018, that “the instant work experience overlaps with the work experience of 2013” (hereinafter “the first notification”) from May 8, 2014 to August 22, 2014.
On May 31, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for six months (from June 24, 2019 to December 23, 2019) on the ground that “the Plaintiff reported the instant career fraudulently” to the Plaintiff based on Article 24(1)1 of the Construction Technology Promotion Act and Article 20(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s failure to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty
This case's disposition is not recognized merely because there was a clerical error in the business name entry.
Even if the grounds for the instant disposition are recognized, considering the fact that the recognition date of the career experience mistakenly stated as above is only 0.3% of the total recognition date of the Plaintiff 9,972 as 30 days, and there is no practical benefit in the prior examination of the qualification for participation in construction technology services (PP), the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.
The career of this case reported differently from the actual work of the defendant shall be deemed to be due to a simple negligence.