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 May 4, 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff, a certified public appraiser, violated the duty to comply with the appraisal rules under Article 31 of the Act on Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate (hereinafter “Real Estate Publication Act”) and the duty of good faith under Article 37(1) of the same Act; and (b) imposed a disposition on the Plaintiff on two-month suspension period (from May 20, 2010 to August 3, 2010).

(hereinafter referred to as “first disciplinary action”). (b)

On the other hand, on November 16, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension one year and three months (one year or three months from December 1, 2010 to February 29, 2012) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the appraisal principles, etc. of officially announced price of reference land under Article 21(2) of the Real Estate Publication Act and Article 17 of the former Rules on the Appraisal and Evaluation of Real Estate (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 508, Aug. 2, 2012).

(hereinafter referred to as "second disciplinary action"). C.

The plaintiff filed an application for suspension of execution with respect to each of the above disciplinary actions as follows, but finally lost all of them in the merits.

Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff did not suspend the execution during the period of suspension of the first and second disciplinary actions, the Seoul Southern District Court and the Seoul Northern District Court conducted a total of 85 appraisal (excluding double-evaluations), as follows: Provided, That the “number of evaluations during the period of suspension of business” as indicated below, the Plaintiff conducted a total of 85 appraisal during the overlapping period of each period of suspension of business due to the first and second disciplinary action.

The Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Ka1645 delivered on October 4, 2010, which held that the execution of the first instance court of the first instance was suspended during the case number and the period of business suspension of reference matters.