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

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)

In order to supplement the shortage of capital stock, the Plaintiff received a report on the financial management status diagnosis that the FMC Co., Ltd. through A (hereinafter referred to as “MM”) will conduct a diagnosis of financial management status, and submitted it to the Defendant.

After that, on November 16, 2012, the Plaintiff reported matters concerning the registration standard of construction business to the Korea Construction Association (which is an institution that receives reports on the registration standard of construction business and confirms the details of the reports) on November 16, 2012.

E. In the process of examining the Plaintiff’s eligibility of the Plaintiff’s standards for registration of construction business, the Korea Construction Association shall provide the Plaintiff’s certificate of deposit balance of KRW 700 million in a supporting document as supplementing the shortage of capital as stated in the foregoing sub-paragraph (c).

The Defendant confirmed that the report on the examination of financial management status is forged documents and false documents, and that the Plaintiff’s report on the examination of financial management status falls short of the real capital registration standard upon deducting the non-performing assets of KRW 700,000,000 from the total capital amount of KRW 1,157,590,612 of the Plaintiff’s total capital as of the end of 2011. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the examination that “the non-performing capital registration standard” was inappropriate. On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff was subject to an administrative disposition by the Plaintiff due to its failure to meet the standards for registration, but the same cause for failure to

"For reasons, the Framework Act on the Construction Industry."