업무정지처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on November 25, 2013 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an architect operating (group)B architect C.
B. On-site investigation and inspection of the Plaintiff related to the approval of use of the building, the Plaintiff was designated as the special prosecutor, such as a field investigation and inspection related to the approval of use of the building listed below (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) from the Magyang-do Building Society in Magyang-do, Jeonyang-do, and conducted a field investigation and inspection of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant field investigation”) as described in the said table, and submitted a report for approval of use and inspection to the effect that all matters of the investigation are satisfied and do not differ from the permitted design documents, etc., and the Mayang-do Construction Co., Ltd.
Location of a building (D) the fourth-story multi-family house EF on June 10, 201 on the date of approval for the use of the date of the building permit, the date of the construction permit, shall be April 29, 201. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22810, Apr. 22, 2011>
The plaintiff performed supervisory duties in multi-family houses of the plaintiff, such as the details in attached Form 2, conducted supervisory duties on multi-family houses in which G is the owner of the building, and prepared and submitted a report to the defendant that the buildings he supervised are constructed in conformity with the construction permission.
On January 17, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the number of households of the instant building increased, contrary to the contents of the building permit received through a joint inspection with public officials belonging to Gwangju-si on January 17, 2013.
Accordingly, the defendant submitted to the plaintiff a false inspection report that the building of this case was constructed properly despite the increase in the number of households different from the construction permit in the course of conducting the field investigation of this case. ② The apartment house of G was constructed properly while performing the supervision of multi-family house was constructed differently from the design drawing.