1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on November 25, 2013 is revoked.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a certified architect who operates the B architect office.

B. The Plaintiff’s on-site investigation and inspection related to the approval of use of the building was designated as the special prosecutor, such as the on-site investigation and inspection related to the approval of use of the building listed below from the Yacheon-do Building Association (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) in Jeonnam-do, and conducted a field investigation and inspection of the instant building as described in the said table, and submitted a report for approval of use investigation and inspection to the head of the Ycheon-do, to the effect that all matters subject to investigation are satisfied and no different from the construction permission documents, etc., and the net

The location of a building (the location in Maecheon City C) shall be the third floor multi-family house DE on April 15, 201, on August 22, 2011, on August 23, 2011, of the apartment house F G on August 23, 2011, for which the date of permission for the use of the date of the on-site investigation of the building owner is permitted.

The plaintiff's multi-family housing design work performed the design work for the first multi-family house at the time of netcheon City H H's ground.

On January 9, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the number of households of the instant building increased by one household, unlike the contents of the building permit received through a joint inspection with public officials belonging to the relevant Si of Netcheon-si.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff, on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated the architect’s good faith duty by designing the Plaintiff to increase the number of households in the course of designing the I’s multi-family house; and (b) submitting a false inspection protocol that the number of households was properly constructed despite the increase in the number of households different from the details of the construction permit in conducting a field investigation related to the approval of use of the instant building; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of an administrative disposition as shown in [Attachment 1], and on November 25, 2013.