1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff registered a construction business (registration number B) with the type of business as a company aimed at housing construction business, etc. and its type of business as “construction business.”

B. On December 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension six months (from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016) pursuant to Article 83 Subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s capital in 2013 and 2014 falls short of the standards for registration of construction business (at least 50 million capital).

C. When the Plaintiff’s capital in 2016 (based on December 31, 2016) fell short of the registration standards for construction business at KRW 16,85,450,219, the Defendant was against the Plaintiff on February 20, 2018.

In accordance with the proviso of Article 83 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the Plaintiff’s registration of construction business was cancelled pursuant to subparagraph 3-3 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) within three years after the disposition of business suspension was taken.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The non-existence of the plaintiff's assertion 1 aims to promote the proper execution of construction works and the sound development of the construction industry by imposing sanctions in cases where the plaintiff's assertion 1 stated matters necessary for the registration of construction business and fails to meet the registration standards. To achieve this purpose, the determination should be based on the recent status of the construction company in imposing such sanctions.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the time of the instant disposition, failed to meet the Plaintiff’s capital stock and made the instant disposition based on the year 2016, which was not the immediately preceding business year. This is unlawful. Even if the Plaintiff’s capital in 2016 did not meet the registration standards, and the grounds for disposition have occurred, then the Plaintiff’s capital in 201