The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

The reasons why our court should explain about this case are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasons why we should explain about this case are deducted from adding the following Paragraph (2).

According to Article 83 subparagraph 3-3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which provides that the Plaintiff shall cancel the registration of construction business within three years after receiving the disposition of business suspension, “within three years after receiving the disposition of business suspension”, the Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case was violated on the ground that at least the period of business suspension has occurred after the expiration of the period of business suspension, and that the Defendant violated the said provision on the ground that the Plaintiff’s period of business suspension falls short of the real capital as of December 31, 201, between December 31, 2011 and March 30, 2012.

However, the above provision provides that “after receiving a disposition of business suspension” is clearly based on the time of business suspension regardless of the period of business suspension as stipulated in the disposition of business suspension.

The legislative intent of the above provision is repeated to set off a disqualified company which falls short of the registration standards from the construction industry. Since a company which falls short of the registration standards was unable to obtain the registration of a construction business, it is difficult to see that the above provision exceptionally permits the state of falling short of registration standards during the period from the disposition of business suspension to the expiration date of the business suspension period, and such interpretation of the above provision cannot be deemed extremely unfair in light of the context before and after

On a different premise, the first Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

If the Plaintiff appears to be "a concurrent business asset" excluded from the calculation of real capital in accordance with the guidelines for corporate diagnosis of construction companies, it is premised on the premise.