1. On November 25, 2013, the Defendant issued a three-month business suspension disposition against the Plaintiff (from December 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014).

1. Basic facts

A. On-site surveys, inspections, and confirmations by the Plaintiff as an architect on July 27, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a construction permit from the inn market on March 29, 201 from the inn market; and (b) performed on-site surveys, inspections, and confirmations for approval for use of the fourth-story building located D (hereinafter “instant building”); and (c) obtained approval for use of the instant building on August 16, 201.

B. On December 27, 2012, the Defendant discovered illegal remodeling and the leisure and drinking cities conducted a joint inspection on the instant building. The fact that the number of households of the instant building increased differently from the details of the initial construction permit (hereinafter “instant violation”).

C. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the administrative disposition in advance that the Plaintiff sent a prior notice of the same content as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 in accordance with Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act, because the Plaintiff’s performance of the on-site investigation, inspection, confirmation, etc. for the purpose of obtaining approval for use is recognized as a cause attributable to

On November 25, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she was subject to disposition as shown in the Attachment No. 2 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in violation of relevant statutes, etc. in the course of conducting a field investigation, inspection, confirmation, etc. for approval of use.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6 through 9, Eul evidence 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant statutes

A. (1) At the time of an on-site investigation for the approval of use, there was no increase in the number of households of the building at the time of the investigation for the approval of use by the Plaintiff. The increase in the number of households was made after the on-site investigation by the Plaintiff. (2) The building is removed beyond the scale of large-scale repair for the purpose of correcting violations.