1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. On May 18, 2017, the Defendant is against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following matters:

The Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 197, Oct. 17, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) in 2nd 6nd , shall be "Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act".

The "Framework Act on Industrial Safety" of the 3rd 5th Myeon shall be improved to the "Industrial Safety and Health Act".

Each "Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act" of the 3th, 13, 14, and 6th, shall be improved as the "Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act".

In four pages 10,11, and 12, the former Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 197, Oct. 17, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be amended to the former Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

6. The phrase "in consideration of the purpose, etc." of the 1st eth 6th eth 1st eth eth eth

8 pages 12 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 179, Oct. 17, 2017) shall be amended as the "Enforcement Rule of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act".

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and according to the data recorded in the records of this case, it is recognized that there is an urgent need to suspend the validity of the above disposition in order to prevent irrecoverable damage to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the validity of the above disposition is likely to have a significant impact on public welfare due to the suspension of the validity of the above disposition. Thus, the validity of the disposition of this case