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

A. The reasons for the entry of this case are as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

B. Parts in height

(1) Under the second sentence of the first instance judgment, “Gas Safety Corporation” shall be deemed to read “Gas Safety Corporation (the authority to conduct inspections and reinspections under Article 36(1)4 of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act and Article 25(3)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is entrusted by the Defendant pursuant to Article 17(1) of the same Act)”.

(2) Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment on the defects in the procedure for the on-site application test (from No. 12 to No. 12) is as follows. According to the evidence No. 2 and No. 7, the special case of this case provides that the on-site application test of the on-site application test of the valve No. 2 is conducted jointly by the Gas Safety Corporation with the valve Development Enterprise. The on-site application test of the valves of this case was conducted from December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 by the Gas Safety Corporation, the Commission, the Simt Tech Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff’s representative director or employee did not directly participate in the above on-site application test.

However, the special provisions of this case, which provide for the field application test jointly with a valve developer, shall not be construed as imposing an obligation to participate in the field application test on a valve developer, or an obligation to participate in the field application test on a valve developer on a gas safety corporation. Thus, it shall not be interpreted that an on-site application test is unlawful if a valve developer must participate in or does not participate in the on-site application test, and the above provision shall be interpreted as an opportunity to participate in the valve developer in order to ensure the fairness of the on-site application test.

In light of the Plaintiff’s overall purport of oral argument, the Plaintiff’s representative director, on November 11, 2009, knew that the valve developer could have been present at that time. The Plaintiff’s representative director did not express his/her intention to attend the on-site test without considering the fact that he/she did not directly visit the on-site test to the point of application of gas safety examination to the extent that the on-site application test was well conducted, and that the Plaintiff’s representative director did not know that he/she did not directly participate in the on-site test, and that he/she did not directly participate in the on-site test, such as the valve at the time of application of the on-site test. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s representative director visited the on-site test to the extent that the on-site application test was not conducted, and that he/she did not know that the above on-site test did not have any opportunity to participate in the on-site test, as the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time of application of the on-site test to the extent that he/she did not have been present.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong-sung

Judges Lee Sung-sung