1. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending part of its business on January 5, 2015 (the location of the surety loan) that the Plaintiff rendered shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a credit service provider registered with the Defendant pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”). A registration number of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 3-2 of the Credit Business Act around March 2013 is 2013-Seoul Metropolitan Government-070, and the term of validity of registration is from March 12, 2013 to March 13, 2016, and was issued a registration certificate of credit business by the Defendant on March 24, 2013.

B. On January 5, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of inspection on the Plaintiff’s loan business, and accordingly, on January 5, 2015, on the ground of the omission of the content of guarantee, which is an essential entry under the loan contract, and an error of the registration number of the credit business, and on the ground of an error in the entries in the registration number of the credit business, Article 6(1) and Article 1

2. In applying item (g) of individual standards, a disposition of partial suspension of business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was taken in three months from February 5, 2015 to May 4, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition did not violate Article 6(1)9 of the Credit Business Act, Articles 6(1)12 and 6(3)7 of the Credit Business Act, and Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Credit Business Act. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on the grounds that the Defendant’s omission of the content of guarantee and error in the registration number of the credit business was unlawful without any grounds for disposition. 2) Even if the Plaintiff violated the statutes, even if the grounds for disposition were to have been found to have violated the laws and regulations, the instant disposition of this case was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff in violation of the principle of proportionality.

(b) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term "credit business" means money;