1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff was registered as a non-profit corporation established mainly for the purpose of the excavation and inspection of the surface of cultural heritage and the preservation and disposal of cultural heritage, and on February 19, 2014, the Defendant registered as a buried cultural heritage inspection institution under Article 24 of the Act on the Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage (hereinafter “the Buried Cultural Heritage Act”).

B. From February 1, 2017 to August 29, 2018, the Plaintiff obtained permission to excavate and investigate 18 buried cultural heritage, including the excavation and inspection of relics (a permit number R; hereinafter “the excavation and inspection according to the C urban planning”) and the excavation and inspection of relics in the E site for construction (a permit number S; hereinafter “E construction site excavation and inspection”) from the Defendant as well as the excavation and inspection of buried cultural heritage.

C. On July 25, 2018, H accused the Plaintiff’s employees committed an unlawful act, such as falsely registering the preservation science research institute that the Plaintiff did not work at the National Newspapers, and falsely registering the participation of the excavation research personnel and the number of days of investigation.

Accordingly, from August 8, 2018 to August 10, 2018, the Defendant conducted an investigation with the Plaintiff, and on October 5, 2018, issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff to “15 days of business suspension of land excavation and inspection (main, drilling, and precision)” for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Article 25(1)4 of the Buried Cultural Heritage Act (amended by Act No. 1). (1) An application for an excavation permit and an excavation inspection conducted in a situation that falls short of the human resources of a land excavation inspection agency by fraud or other improper means (Article 25(1)4 of the Buried Cultural Heritage Act). The Plaintiff is registered with the Cultural Heritage Administration on February 1, 17 as an inspector by employing B of the Korea Research Institute for Preservation and Research on February 1, 17. In fact, B does not work at work and does not perform preservation work at all. - In other words, the Plaintiff does not satisfy the registration criteria of a land excavation inspection agency for approximately one year and seven months from February 1, 17 to August 29, 18.