1. The Defendant’s revocation of registration of construction business as of January 1, 2010 against the Plaintiff on December 22, 2009 shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 20, 1993, the Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a construction business after registering the landscape architecture construction business. On July 8, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the construction business registration standards (hereinafter “instant report”).

B. At the time of the instant report on July 27, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced on January 15, 2009 to a suspended sentence of two months by imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) at the Changwon District Court on January 15, 2009 (the above judgment became final and conclusive). This constitutes the ground for disqualification for the registration of a construction business under Article 13(1)4 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 9875, Dec. 29, 2009; hereinafter the same) and thus, the above inappropriate report constitutes the ground for disqualification for the registration of a construction business (hereinafter “instant ground for disqualification for registration”), and was announced publicly in the Knowledge Industry Information Network, and was notified to the Plaintiff.

C. On December 22, 2009, the Defendant applied Article 83 Subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry on the ground of the instant grounds for disqualification for registration, and issued a disposition to cancel the Plaintiff’s registration of construction business as of January 1, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) compliance with the replacement period B was registered as the representative director on the Plaintiff’s corporate register, but in substance, C, as the largest investor against the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff, was not a D employee operated separately from the Plaintiff, and did not notify the Plaintiff of the instant grounds for disqualification. However, C, the Plaintiff and C, the actual operator of the Plaintiff, became aware of the instant grounds for disqualification only when the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the acceptance of the instant report, and the Plaintiff’s representative director was replaced on October 5, 2009, within three months thereafter.