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. The Plaintiff’s on-site investigation and inspection related to the approval of use of a building was designated as the special prosecutor, such as a field investigation and inspection, in relation to the approval of use of the building (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Yacheon-do Building Association in Jeonnam-do, and conducted an on-site investigation and inspection (hereinafter “the instant on-site investigation”) of the instant building as indicated in the said table. The Plaintiff prepared a report for approval for use investigation and inspection to the effect that all matters of the investigation are satisfied and do not differ from the permitted design documents, etc. and submitted it to the Y-do Mayor on the basis of the said report.

The location of a building (net City) the fourth floor multi-family house C and two parcels D on April 22, 201, as well as the date of approval for the use of the date of the on-site investigation of the building permit date, shall be December 14, 201.

On January 9, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the number of households of the instant building increased differently from the details of the building permit received through a joint inspection with public officials belonging to the relevant Si of Netcheon-si.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff of an administrative disposition on October 1, 2013, on the ground that “the Plaintiff, while conducting the instant field investigation, submitted a false inspection protocol that the building was constructed properly despite the increase in the number of households, unlike the details of the building permit; and (b) issued a prior notice of the administrative disposition on November 25, 2013; and (c) issued a disposition of suspension of business between three months (from December 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014) as indicated in Attached Table 2, as indicated in Attached Table 2.

(B) In the following, each entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 and 29 (including the number of pages) and the purport of the whole pleadings: (a) there is no dispute; (b) there is no dispute; and (c) the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The plaintiff.