1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing penalty points to the Plaintiffs on May 24, 2019 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) is a company aimed at the design business of a building, etc., and Plaintiff B is an internal director of the Plaintiff Company as an internal director.

B. On July 11, 2017, the Plaintiff Company entered into a design service contract with the Korea Testing Laboratory (hereinafter “C”) and performed design services under the said contract.

The contract term was set from July 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017 at the time of the initial contract, but was extended to September 28, 2018.

C. On March 5, 2019, at the site of the instant construction project, one bridge of the Working Group head entered a drum in the form of a drum, and eventually, the occurrence of an accident that the head of the Working Group died.

On March 19, 2019, the Defendant conducted on-site inspections on the instant construction site with the foregoing accident.

On April 11, 2019, the Defendant issued a notice of imposition of penalty points to the Plaintiffs as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “the scheduled notice of this case”). Pursuant to Article 53 of the Construction Technology Promotion Act and subparagraph 5 of attached Table 87(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act with respect to the matters pointed out in the instant construction project being executed and managed by Ear company, notice of scheduled imposition of penalty points is as follows:

In addition, the violation of the design document: The design document for the design service division for the preparation of the design document stating that "working design document shall be prepared including an explanatory note, specifications, drawings, and a statement of calculation of construction cost necessary for the construction work." However, the design document for the construction field shall include construction work, design outline, detailed execution method, summary of construction cost, work process plan, etc. However, the design document for the construction project in this case was examined, and there was omission of specifications and detailed execution method for the ongoing file basic construction work (PHC). The subject of penalty document: The construction technology service business entity company, the construction engineer, and the Plaintiff B penalty points for each of three points: the Construction Technology Promotion Act.