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

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs a construction business after registering a construction business which is a business of performing general construction works.

B. The Defendant determined that “if the Plaintiff’s capital total amount of KRW 570 million is excluded from advance payment of KRW 250 million, which is non-performing assets, of KRW 50 million, the Plaintiff’s real capital is merely KRW 320 million and thus the Plaintiff’s actual capital is below KRW 500 million under [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry,” and notified the Plaintiff on June 18, 2019 that the Plaintiff will be subject to the disposition of suspension of business for six months due to the failure to meet the registration standards, and notified the Plaintiff of the attendance at the hearing held on July 25, 2019.

C. The Plaintiff requested the postponement of the hearing twice, and the Defendant accepted it and held a hearing on October 10, 2019 against the Plaintiff.

On November 13, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for five months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 83 Subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the standards for registration of construction business (capital).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 10, 2019, the Defendant: (a) determined B as a public official of the disposition department in charge of the administrative disposition of construction business; and (b) held a hearing.

This is a violation of Articles 28 and 29 of the Administrative Procedures Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which limit the prohibition of presiding over the hearing in cases where the person directly handled or handled the relevant disposition, etc., and thus, the disposition of this case is null and void.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of 90 days from November 15, 2019, on which the date of the instant disposition was served on the Plaintiff, and the instant lawsuit was unlawful as it exceeds the period for filing the lawsuit. B) from July 26, 2019 to the time of the instant disposition.