1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2001. 9. 19. 건설산업기본법에 따라 건설업 등록을 마치고 토목건축공사업을 영위하는 회사이다.

B. Around January 2010, the Chungcheongnam-do Governor (hereinafter “ Chungcheongnam-do Governor”) issued a disposition of suspension of business for three months from January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010 on the ground that the Plaintiff fell short of the standards for the registration of construction business.

C. On July 19, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of cancellation of registration pursuant to Article 83 subparag. 3-3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff fell short of the same registration standard for construction business registration in 2009 and was subject to a disposition of suspension of business within three years from the date of the disposition of suspension of business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was notified of the fact-finding survey under Article 49 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by the Chungcheongnam-Nam Branch, and submitted relevant data. However, on January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff was aware that the fact-finding survey was terminated due to the failure to receive notification of the results of the survey, and thereafter, on January 24, 2014, a periodic report was accepted by the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was trusted that the amount of capital in 2012 meets the standards for registration of construction business. However, the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor demanded the Plaintiff to submit evidentiary documents related to the fact-finding survey on December 18, 2014, and the Plaintiff was unable to appropriately respond to the said fact-finding survey. The instant disposition was deemed disqualified for the capital in 2011 year, which was already verified due to the Plaintiff’s periodic acceptance of the Plaintiff’s report. Thus, it was unlawful in violation of the good faith principle or the principle of res judicata).