1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on November 25, 2013 is revoked.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an architect operating B office.

B. The Plaintiff’s agent, such as the Plaintiff’s on-site investigation, etc. related to the approval of use of a building, was designated as the special prosecutor, such as on-site investigation and inspection, in relation to the approval of use of the building (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Yancheon-do Building Association, Jeonnam-do, and conducted a on-site investigation and inspection (hereinafter “on-site investigation”) on the instant building, and submitted a report for approval for use investigation and inspection to the effect that all the investigation matters are satisfied and that there is no difference with the permitted design documents, etc., to the YY-do City.

The location of a building (the owner of the building in e.g. C) shall be the owner of the building on November 17, 201, 201.

On January 9, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the number of households of the instant building increased differently from the details of the building permit received through a joint inspection with public officials belonging to the relevant Si of Netcheon-si.

Accordingly, on November 25, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension of business between three months (from December 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014) as indicated in attached Table 1, on the ground that “the Plaintiff submitted a false inspection report that the number of households was properly constructed despite any increase in the number of households, different from the details of the construction permit, while conducting the instant field investigation.”

(B) At the next time, each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 13, and Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The Plaintiff had not increased the number of households of the instant building at the time of conducting the instant field investigation because there was no legitimate ground for the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, and there was approval for use.