1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on November 25, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an architect who operates B architect office.

B. On-site investigation and inspection of the Plaintiff related to the approval of use of the building, the Plaintiff was designated as the special prosecutor, such as a field investigation and inspection related to the approval of use of the building listed below (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) from the Magyang-do Building Society in Magyang-do, Jeonyang-do, and conducted a field investigation and inspection of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant field investigation”) as described in the said table, and submitted a report for approval of use and inspection to the effect that all matters of the investigation are satisfied and do not differ from the permitted design documents, etc., and the Mayang-do Construction Co., Ltd.

The location of a building (e.g., the owner of luminous building) shall be the owner of the 4th floor multi-family house CD DD CD on July 9, 201 on June 22, 2011, on June 22, 2011, the date of approval for the use of the date of the building permit, and the 4th apartment house EF on June 22, 2010 on June 22, 2011, the 4th floor GH on June 27, 2011, July 28, 2010, the 2011 GH on March 24, 2011, JL I on July 28, 2010.

The plaintiff performed the design work of the plaintiff's multi-family house as shown in attached Form 1, and the 20 persons, such as K, etc. (the remaining building owner except the building owner of the building of this case) are the building owner. D.

On January 17, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the number of households of the instant building increased, contrary to the contents of the building permit received through a joint inspection with public officials belonging to Gwangju-si on January 17, 2013.

Accordingly, on November 25, 2013, the defendant submitted to the plaintiff a false inspection report that the building of this case was properly constructed even if the number of households increased differently from the construction permit obtained, and ② K's multi-family house.