1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for this part of the disposition by the court are the same as the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Act and subordinate statutes on the grounds of the instant disposition are based on the premise that both the local contract law, Article 31 of the Local Contract Act, Article 92(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 76(1) [Attachment 2] 3(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and the supervision over the “unfair construction” and “illegal construction” as stipulated in subparagraph (c) of the same Article were executed differently from the design.

However, since the instant construction project and F were executed in accordance with the design document, such construction cannot be deemed as falling under “unfair construction” or “unfair construction,” and accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s unfaithful performance of supervisory duties has occurred.

B. According to Article 39(1) of the Construction Technology Promotion Act and Article 59(4)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a construction project management engineer intervenes in the “design” phase, the propriety of the relevant structural calculation is also examined. However, according to Article 39(5) of the same Act and Article 57(2)5 of the Construction Technology Management Work Guidelines, where an intervention is made after the completion of the design, the relevant construction specifications are required to verify whether the structural calculation statement bearing the signature and seal of the relevant professional engineer is attached.

Since the Plaintiff confirmed that the structural calculation statement was accompanied by the structural engineer’s name, and there is no other obligation to examine the appropriateness of structural calculation statements, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have performed the supervisory duties in good faith on the ground that the Plaintiff did not examine whether the first floor floor might collapse in the roof concrete building process.

At the time, as a general supervision, the floor of the first floor is supported.