업무정지처분취소
1. On November 25, 2013, the Defendant issued a three-month business suspension disposition against the Plaintiff (from December 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014).
1. Basic facts
A. On-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation by the Plaintiff as an architect on January 20, 201, the Plaintiff, as an agent, performed on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation for the approval of use of the building C4th floor (hereinafter “instant building”) in the opticalyang-si, which was constructed upon obtaining a building permit from the Mineyang Market on July 26, 2010, and on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation on January 26, 201.
B. On January 17, 2013, the Defendant and Mineyang-si: (a) discovered illegal remodeling; (b) conducted a joint inspection on the instant building; and (c) discovered the increased number of households of the instant building differently from the original construction permit (hereinafter “instant violation”).
C. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of an administrative disposition in advance that the Plaintiff sent a prior notice of the same content as the attached Form 1 in accordance with Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s performance of the field investigation and inspection for design, construction supervision, and approval for use is a cause attributable to the violation of relevant statutes.
On November 25, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the disposition was taken as shown in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in the course of conducting a field investigation, inspection, confirmation, etc. for design, construction supervision, approval for use, etc.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant statutes
A. (1) At the time of an on-site investigation for the approval of use, there was no increase in the number of households of the building at the time when the Plaintiff did not conduct a on-site investigation for the approval of use. The increase in the number of households was made after the Plaintiff’s on-site investigation. (2) In order to correct violations, the building should be removed or reconstructed beyond the scale of large-scale repair.