영업정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The plaintiff is a company with the construction business, etc. as its business purpose.
On November 24, 2015, the Korea Construction Association Association issued a notification to the Defendant on November 24, 2015, that “the Plaintiff’s capital stock was deficited in 2013 among the Plaintiff’s registration standards for construction business, and the total capital stock of the financial statements in 2014 was indicated in KRW 532,889,880, but there was no data on the data on the total installment savings in 200,000,000 and the accounts receivable for KRW 433,556,000 on the financial statements.”
Accordingly, on November 25, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that construction business is inappropriate for registration standards and the explanation and opinion thereon. On December 16, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the prior disposition that “to be conducted on January 11, 2016 of the hearing.”
On January 11, 2016, the date of the hearing, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to postpone the hearing on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s representative director was hospitalized, and the Defendant requested the postponement of the hearing in writing. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for postponement of the hearing to the effect that “The representative director of the Plaintiff was hospitalized as a branch of the disease (in need of treatment for seven days as follows).”
On January 18, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for five months pursuant to Article 83 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 80(1) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to meet the standards for registration of construction business (capital).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number if there are separate numbers), and the plaintiff's argument of the purport of the whole pleadings is legitimate, the defendant's disposition of this case merely stated that the violation of the violation falls short of the standards for registration of a construction business (capital) and the grounds for disposition as "Article 83 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry".