2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff

A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A”) is a corporation that runs a construction service business, urban and local planning design business, etc., and Plaintiff B was an employee of Plaintiff A, who is a responsible technician of “C services” (service period: from February 11, 2015 to February 10, 2016; hereinafter “instant services”).

The Defendant received the Plaintiff’s delivery of the construction design specifications, design drawings, quantity calculation specifications, etc. (hereinafter “the instant performance products”) from the Plaintiff. On July 2017, the safety audit officer at the Defendant’s position notified the Defendant to impose penalty points on the Plaintiffs on the grounds that there was a disagreement between the design documents due to the following: (a) as a result of the audit of the instant performance products to the head of the urban traffic headquarters, etc., the basic amount calculation sheet regarding the traffic signal prop was reflected in the calculation sheet; (b) however, on the ground that there was a disagreement between the design documents due to the failure to present the design standards and the drawings for the traffic signal prop, etc.

On September 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiffs on the following grounds pursuant to Article 87(5) [Attachment 8] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29360, Dec. 11, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) notified the Plaintiffs of the imposition of penalty points to request them to submit their opinions by October 11, 2017; and (c) attached a written request for disposition that reflects the basic religion signals, etc. at the time of specific audit of the C services prepared by the safety audit officer, such as drawings, production and installation standards, and calculation specifications, different from construction specifications and calculation sheets, preparation of integrated land drawings, and failure to review the structure.

The plaintiffs submitted a written opinion on the imposition of penalty points to the defendant around October 12, 2017, but the defendant submitted a written opinion on the imposition of penalty points to the plaintiffs on October 25, 2017.