건설업등록말소처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 4, 2008, the Plaintiff registered the construction business with the category of business as a packing business.
B. On September 8, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s capital assessed as of the year 2016 falls short of the registration standards under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.
(hereinafter referred to as “prior disposition”). (c)
On January 17, 2018, the defendant reduced the period of suspension of business for 15 days on the ground of the completion of construction business education by the representative of the plaintiff.
On January 18, 2018, the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff to submit a report on financial management conditions and supplementary documents to the Plaintiff as of the end of the period of business suspension ( January 23, 2018), but the Plaintiff did not submit such report.
Accordingly, on April 25, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to cancel the registration of a construction business to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff failed to meet the registration standards (capital) after the completion of business suspension due to lack of capital.”
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and Eul’s Nos. 1, 4, and 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. An entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Based on the Construction Business Management Regulations, which are merely the established rules, and the “Construction Business Diagnosis Guidelines” attached thereto, the Defendant deducted the Plaintiff’s financial statements from the capital by deeming the “main short-term bond 94,500,000,000” as non-performing assets, and determined that the Plaintiff’s “actual capital” falls short of KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
In addition, the defendant assessed non-performing assets.