Law Firm Jeong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Cha Sung-won

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

The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension of three months (from August 10, 2017 to November 9, 2017) against the Plaintiff on August 2, 2017 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning of this Court regarding this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following modifications. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Revisioned Part】

The judgment of the first instance court is divided into “it is reasonable to see that it can be held in duplicate.” The holding of the judgment of the first instance court should not be prohibited. The "Research Center Safety Act" in the 6th judgment of the first instance court is regarded as the "Research Center Safety Act". The 6th judgment of the first instance court is divided into the "Research Center Safety Act". The 6th judgment of the first instance court, the 18th to 17th judgment of the second instance court, and the 12th of the 6th of the 6th judgment, are written in the following box.

(3) On the other hand, a laboratory safety diagnosis agency under the Laboratory Safety Act is an agency conducting safety inspections to promote industrial safety at a general workplace or a construction workplace. On the other hand, a laboratory safety diagnosis agency under the Laboratory Safety Act has some similar aspects of characteristics and roles as an agency conducting safety inspections to promote the safety of laboratories in the fields of science and technology, but its nature and roles are distinct, and each supervisory administrative agency differs, and as seen earlier, the standards for each

In addition, unlike safety diagnosis agencies under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, there are additional requirements for career in the case of a laboratory safety diagnosis agency under the Laboratory Safety Act. Considering the details of such statutes, it is reasonable to determine whether the requirements for human resources of a safety diagnosis agency and a laboratory safety diagnosis agency are met individually as required by the statutes governing respective safety diagnosis agencies. (4) Even if the human resources belonging to a safety diagnosis agency belong to a laboratory safety diagnosis agency at the same time, there is also a lack of reasonable ground to readily conclude that the performance of duties as human resources in the safety diagnosis agency has actually been hindered. Rather, there is a lack of reason to conclude that there is a similar aspect in the duties or necessary technical capabilities carried out by each agency.

○ Part 7, 13 through 21, on the judgment of the first instance court, shall be deleted.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Min Il-young

Judge Lee Jin-hun