1. The Defendant’s revocation of registration of a comprehensive construction business that the Plaintiff rendered on September 16, 2015 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 11, 2009, the Plaintiff is a company that completed the registration of a construction business with a type of civil engineering work as “civil engineering work” under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and has operated a comprehensive construction business.

B. On May 23, 2012, the Plaintiff received a disposition of business suspension for three months (from June 4, 2012 to September 4, 2012) on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to meet capital standards among the criteria for registration of construction business.

C. On September 3, 2012, the Defendant received a civil petition stating that “the Plaintiff would have paid capital on the basis of the registration standard of construction business,” and discovered the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 500 million on July 3, 2012 and deposited it in the savings account in the name of the Plaintiff Nong Bank, thereby recognizing the real capital as KRW 823,137,713, which was recognized on September 3, 2012. On September 4, 2012, the Defendant collected KRW 500 million and discovered that the capital on the basis of the registration standard of construction business fell short of the capital (70 million).

On September 16, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to cancel the Plaintiff’s comprehensive construction business registration (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 83 subparag. 3-3 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14015, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter “former Framework Act on the Construction Industry”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff was subject to an administrative disposition that falls short of capital standards among the registration standards for construction business within the last three years, by temporarily raising capital, and withdrawing the Plaintiff’s capital from September 14, 2012, thereby falling short of capital standards.”

On December 16, 2015, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a notice of change in the legal basis of the instant disposition, which read that the pertinent provision changed from the “instant provision” to Article 83 subparag. 3 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 11466, Jun. 1, 2012) and Chapter VII subparag. 2 (b) of the Construction Business Management Regulations.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1.