1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The elevator inspection agency that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on July 14, 2016.

1. The phrase “inspection” under Article 15(2)1(c) of the former Elevator Act cannot be deemed to mean a completion inspection, regular inspection, occasional inspection, and close safety inspection under Article 13-2 of the former Elevator Act pursuant to Article 13(1) of the former Elevator Act. Thus, a disposition based on such premise is unlawful.

The Plaintiff filed an application for designation as an elevator inspection agency with the Defendant on December 25, 2012 (hereinafter “instant first application”). However, the Defendant, on February 8, 2013, means that the former Elevator Facilities Safety Management Act (amended by Act No. 11343, Feb. 22, 2012; hereinafter “former Elevator Act”) was amended by Act No. 11343, Feb. 22, 2012; and Article 15(2)1 (c) of the former Elevator Facilities Safety Management Act (amended by Act No. 11343, Feb. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Elevator Facilities Safety Management Act”) means a regular inspection, occasional inspection, and close safety inspection under Article 13(1) of the former Elevator Facilities Safety Management Act; on the ground that the Plaintiff does not engage in its business, the Plaintiff rejected the designation of an elevator inspection agency (hereinafter “instant rejection disposition”).

On February 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant refusal disposition against the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

On June 4, 2013, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission accepted the plaintiff's appeal on the following grounds.

B. After the above cited ruling, the Defendant rejected the first application of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for designation under Article 15(2)6 of the Elevator Act (it shall be a corporation with at least four offices in the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities, Metropolitan Autonomous Cities, Dos, or Special Self-Governing Province)

C. On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for designation as an elevator inspection agency (hereinafter “application of this case”) by adding office and inspection personnel, and the Defendant on June 27, 2014.