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

A. On December 30, 2015, the Defendant, on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated Article 10 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry as its capital stock in 2013 falls short of the standards for construction business registration” against the Plaintiff, based on Article 83 Subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, imposed a disposition of suspending the Plaintiff’s construction business for five months.

(No. 1). (b)

On June 7, 2019, the Defendant, on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated Article 10 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry because the Plaintiff’s paid-in capital in 2016 falls short of the standards for the registration of construction business,” took Article 83 subparag. 3-3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry as the ground law, and issued a disposition of cancellation of registration of the Plaintiff’s construction business (hereinafter

(A) Evidence Nos. 2, 2-2, 6-2, / [Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, 1, 2-6 of Evidence Nos. 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant disposition was rendered by deeming that: (a) procedural defect in violation of the duty to present reasons under Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act; (b) procedural defect in violation of Article 49(1) and (4) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to the Defendant’s failure to notify in advance seven days prior to the investigation plan; and (c) procedural defect in violation of Article 22(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act and construction management regulations due to the Defendant’s failure to submit the report on financial management; and (b) substantial defect in the process of violation of the instant disposition; and (c) the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff’s outstanding amount’s claim is less than KRW 500 million as non-performing claims; (c) the Plaintiff’s outstanding amount’s claim does not constitute non-performing claims; and (b) the Defendant abused and abused discretion in accordance with construction business management regulations, which are only internal rules, and thus, made a wrong judgment.