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 is a company that was established on February 21, 2012 and registered as a machinery facility construction business on March 27, 2012.

Name-grade qualification types: B Machines and high-class electrical engineer at the time of retirement from the job classification category; B Machines and high-class electrical engineer at the time of February 5, 2012 (as of March 26, 2015); C Machines and electric-class technician at the time of employment on February 5, 2012 (as of March 26, 2015); on February 1, 2013, 2013, of D Machines and used electric-class technician at the time of employment; on July 11, 2013, 2013, of E Machines and used-class electrical-class technicians at the time of employment; and on November 18, 2014 (based on March 26, 2015) the period of employment on November 12, 2014 (based on March 26, 2015).

B. The status of the Plaintiff’s possession of mechanical facility construction business technicians from March 27, 2012 to March 26, 2015 is as follows:

C. On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on matters concerning the standards for registration of construction business, including the aforementioned status of affiliated engineers.

(Period of Report: From March 27, 2012 to March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff held only one construction engineer at the beginning level or higher in the field of machinery and construction under the Construction Technology Promotion Act or one person who has acquired the relevant type of construction under the National Technical Qualifications Act for 165 days from July 11, 2013 to December 23, 2013, and fell short of the technical capacity (at least two persons from among those of the first class or higher in the field of machinery and construction under the Construction Technology Promotion Act or the relevant type of construction under the National Technical Qualifications Act, Article 10 subparagraph 1 of the Act, Article 13 (1) 1 and attached Table 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26979, Feb. 11, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”).

The Plaintiff’s lack of registration standards does not constitute temporary falling short of registration standards provided for in the proviso of Article 83 subparag. 3 of the Act and Article 79-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree.

As a result of examination of the plaintiff's above reports, the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff has failed to meet the technical ability among the standards for registration of a construction business, and that on May 13, 2015, the plaintiff is the Gu for the following reasons.