1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

With respect to this case, this court's reasoning is as follows: ① add "the same Act" to "the grounds" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance; ② dismiss "the survey method" in Part 8 as "the former Survey Act"; ③ add the judgment identical with that in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following Paragraph 2, it is identical to the entry of the reasons in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that, if the Plaintiff’s additional decision-making part is interpreted to include “if it falls short of the registration standards under Article 44(2)” in Article 52(1)4 of the former Land Survey Act, “if it is interpreted to include “the person who meets the registration standards at the time of disposal by ex post supplementing the registration standards,” the above provision is in violation of the Constitution for the following reasons, and thus, the above provision should be interpreted to mean only “if it falls short of the registration standards at

If the surveying businessman falls short of the registration standards in the past, registration is revoked regardless of whether the registration is recovered after the lapse of 90 days, so it is not appropriate to achieve the legislative purpose of excluding those who fall short of the registration standards from the surveying business.

In addition, the legislative purpose of preventing the act of falling short of the registration standards can be achieved through the methods that provide for the administrative agency to suspend the business for a certain period or impose fines, administrative fines, etc., taking into account the specific circumstances, or the methods that provide for the administrative agency to impose fines, administrative fines, etc., and to minimize the infringement of fundamental rights. However, it is against the minimum infringement principle and the principle of excessive prohibition, such as the balance of legal interests.