beta
Text
1. The disposition revoking the registration of the construction business that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 13, 2016 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
가. 원고(종전의 상호는 ‘일경산업개발 주식회사’로 2016. 12. 23. 현재의 상호로 변경되었다)는 토목건축공사업 등을 영위하는 회사로 건설산업기본법령에 따른 보증가능금액확인서 발급기관인 건설공제조합으로부터 위 확인서를 발급받는 등으로 건설산업기본법 제10조에 따른 등록기준을 갖추어 건설업 등록(토목건축공사업)을 마쳤다.
B. The Plaintiff’s loan amount from the Construction Mutual Aid Association exceeded the limit set by the Construction Mutual Aid Association. On December 4, 2013, the Construction Mutual Aid Association terminated the confirmation amount of the possible guarantee amount issued to the Plaintiff on this ground, and notified the Defendant on December 13, 2013.
C. Accordingly, on February 18, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for five months (from March 20, 2014 to August 19, 2014) on the ground that the Plaintiff falls short of the standards for construction business registration pursuant to Article 83 subparag. 3 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14015, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter “former Framework Act on the Construction Industry”).
On January 3, 2016, when the Plaintiff failed to obtain the confirmation letter of possible amount of guarantee by the end date of the business suspension disposition, the Defendant issued a disposition to cancel the registration of construction business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to supplement the requirements for registration by the end date pursuant to Article 83 subparagraph 3-2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.
E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was issued by the Construction Mutual Aid Association on December 30, 2015 a confirmation note of the possible amount of validity from December 30, 2015 to December 29, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1-8, and 17 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) is unconstitutional.