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 June 23, 2006, the Plaintiff shall have at least five construction engineers of at least Grade I, including at least two construction engineers, from among the registration standards for construction businesses under Article 10 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and attached Table 2 of Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and those who are at least Grade II construction engineers in the field of construction under the National Technical Qualifications Act or construction under the Construction Technology Promotion Act.

B. On May 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for five months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the registration standards for construction business under Article 10 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 13 attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act by holding four construction engineers for 139 days during the year 2016, even though the Plaintiff has at least five construction engineers.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion recognized the Plaintiff’s violation, which is the grounds for the instant disposition, but in light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused discretion.

① The Plaintiff constitutes grounds for suspension of business and reduction of penalty surcharges under the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry [Attachment 6], “where correction is completed after a mistake in statutory interpretation, etc., and the circumstances need to be considered.”

② The details of the violation of Acts and subordinate statutes are not the middle-class technician but the first-class technician is insufficient, and the period is about 150 days short.

In addition, on May 15, 2018, the Plaintiff employed an architectural engineer and corrected the violation.

③ The Plaintiff’s sales revenue in 2017 constituted KRW 460,00,00, and net profit of KRW 1,073,731, which remains 10% of the year 2016. The Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is practically inappropriate.