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

A. The Plaintiff is a limited partnership company that runs the package construction business.

B. The defendant from June 25, 2018 to the same year

8. By the 14th day, a specific audit was conducted on the current status of the execution of occupational health and safety management expenses (hereinafter “safety management expenses”), and as a result, the Plaintiff discovered that the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice as indicated in the following table and unfairly claimed the safety management expenses.

A 17.08.03 to 17.010.01, 17.01 to 17.069 to 17.069 to 335 to issue a false tax invoice for 17.16-17.30 to 17.17.30 (Joint) A C 798798 to 262 to issue a false tax invoice for 17.16-17.30 to 262 to 17.16-17.262 to 17.17.30 to 30.12 to 17.12 tax invoice for A C C 812 to 812

C. On February 13, 2019, the Defendant, following the hearing procedure, issued a disposition of restricting the participation of unjust enterprisers against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Article 92(1)13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to which a Local Government is a Party based on sanctions is a Party; Article 76 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to which a Local Government is a Party; from February 15, 2019 to March 14, 2019; Article 76 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to which a Local Government is a Party;

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but received a dismissal ruling on May 28, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 11 through 13, Eul evidence 3 through 5, 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is as follows.