1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, in addition to the dismissal of the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant and the head of the local government, as well as the Defendant, may conduct a fact-finding survey only when necessary to handle the affairs delegated pursuant to Article 91(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. The fact-finding survey of this case was unlawful since delegation provisions related thereto were nonexistent in relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and was conducted by the Defendant without any individual delegation from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the illegal fact-finding survey is also unlawful. Accordingly, the third party 19 “ 48” was deemed as “481” and “No. 11” in the seventh party 6th, “No. 5,18” was deemed as “No. 5, 14, and 18, and the third party 7th party 14 through 20th party 7, “B submitted the Daejeon market (the Plaintiff).” As such, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was also issued a fact-finding survey report on May 6, 2013 with respect to the said fact-finding survey report, and the Plaintiff was issued the said fact-finding report to the Mayor.

Afterward, the Daejeon City Mayor around May 2014 on January 7, 2014.