1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 토목건축공사업의 등록을 마치고 토목건축공사업 등을 영위하는 회사이다.

B. On July 20, 2012, the Korea Construction Association examined the report documents on the registration standards for construction business submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff’s capital in 2011 falls short of the registration standards (based on registration, KRW 1.2 billion, actual holding amount of KRW 838 billion) and falls short of the registration standards for construction business.

C. On July 12, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business for three months against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the capital requirements among the registration standards for construction business in 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, and Eul's 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the non-existence of the grounds for disposition) caused damage to the fire at the Leecheon Logistics Center, which was constructed by the Plaintiff’s representative director, received provisional payment and paid KRW 217 million for the construction cost, and the short-term loan KRW 100 million was recovered on October 22, 2012, and KRW 300 million was sold and returned to the capital on October 31, 2012, KRW 27 million was the amount that can be recovered at all times, and KRW 40 million was recovered at the court deposit on February 13, 2012, KRW 50 million was collected, and KRW 13 million was directly paid as human rights expenses, and all of the above amounts should be recognized as capital.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

Article 83 subparagraph 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 79-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry discriminates against listed corporations and unlisted corporations without any basis, and the National Assembly has also submitted a bill to amend this provision, and the plaintiff again satisfies the capital and the disposition of this case.