1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a supervision service contract with B and C (hereinafter “B, etc.”) to perform supervision services for the construction of E-family housing in the Dong-gu Gwangju-gu D (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. B, etc. obtained approval for the use of each building on January 5, 2018, for a commercial building on October 22, 2018, for an urban planning facility, and for an urban planning facility on December 31, 2018, respectively.

C. On April 3, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing three points to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

In the case of falling short of the effective height of underground escape stairs (16 / 2-38 m) (hereinafter referred to as "grounds 1") (hereinafter referred to as "grounds 27 / 1-4 m"), each entry in the parking spaces (27 / 1-4 m) less than the direction of mining (hereinafter referred to as "grounds 2") (hereinafter referred to as "grounds 3 1, 2, and 3 'the instant disposition grounds') - failure to confirm whether construction has been constructed in accordance with design documents and various criteria - failure to review and confirm the main structural parts or where a supplementary construction is necessary or failure has occurred in the planning process (applicable grounds / there is no dispute), each entry in the parking spaces of underground parking lots (27 / 4 m) below the direction of mining, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 87(5) [Attachment 8] [Attachment 8] of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Promotion Act does not relate to “major structural part,” but does not constitute “a case where supplementary construction is required or where the planning process has been interrupted” as stated in the above attached Table. 2) The instant disposition cause is within the scope of permissible error.

In particular, in the case of 3 reasons, the construction is executed in accordance with the design drawings, and it cannot be said that the supervisor has to examine whether the construction-related statute has been violated.

3 The reason for the disposition of this case is specified in Article 53 (1) of the Construction Technology Promotion Act.