1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff is a supervisory company designated by the Defendant as a supervisor of “B” on the ground of “B” (hereinafter “instant construction project”) located in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant construction”) and performed supervision.

B. On April 13, 2015, the Defendant conducted on-site inspections of the instant construction site (hereinafter “on-site inspections”) and found that two supervisors among them did not work from March 31, 2015, despite that six supervisors are assigned at the instant construction site and performed supervision services.

C. On June 30, 2015, after prior notice and the Plaintiff’s submission of opinions, the Defendant added the standard for measuring given points to the Plaintiff and Article 53 of the Construction Technology Promotion Act and Article 87 and attached Table 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Promotion Act.

2.11.The notice was given that two points are imposed in accordance with paragraph 2.1.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【Unsatisfyss 1, 2, 12, 17, 18, Eul’s 1 through 4, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful.

1) It is true that two of the supervisors of the instant construction work (C and D) were voluntarily resigned on March 31, 2015 and did not existed at the instant construction site at the time of the instant site inspection. However, the resignation of the supervisors was due to personal circumstances. However, the Plaintiff was assigned more supervisors than the above supervisors than the above supervisors at the instant construction site and had them stay at the emergency supervisor. The Plaintiff faithfully performed supervision services for the instant construction work and did not have any defective construction work, and there was no concern about the occurrence of the defective construction work. Therefore, there was no reason to impose the fraudulent penalty points as prescribed by the Construction Technology Promotion Act. (2) At the time of the instant site inspection, two of the supervisors was separated from the construction site due to personal circumstances.