1. On November 25, 2013, the Defendant issued a business suspension disposition against the Plaintiff for 4.5 months (from December 1, 2013 to April 15, 2014).

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 201, 201, the date of the Plaintiff’s on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation on the fourth floor building B C on May 28, 201, which was the date of approval for the use of the building site on the date of the building permit for the construction site of the building site for the Plaintiff’s agency for the performance of the duties of on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation, on January 27, 2011, the Plaintiff as an architect on March 4, 2011, as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “each building of this case”). The approval for the use of each building of this case was granted as indicated in the following table.

B. On January 9, 2013, the Defendant and the Macheon City: (a) discovered illegal remodeling; (b) conducted a joint inspection on the instant building; and (c) discovered the increased number of households of each instant building differently from the original construction permit (hereinafter “instant violation”).

C. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of an administrative disposition in advance that the Plaintiff sent a prior notice of the same content as the attached Form 1 in accordance with Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s performance of the field investigation and inspection for design, construction supervision, and approval for use is a cause attributable to the violation of relevant statutes.

On November 25, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the disposition was taken as shown in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in the course of conducting a field investigation, inspection, confirmation, etc. for design, construction supervision, approval for use, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 9, 12 through 14, 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant statutes

A. At the time of a field investigation for the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 approval, there was no increase in the number of households of the building at the time of a field investigation for the Plaintiff’s approval for use.