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 investigation, inspection, and confirmation by the Plaintiff as an architect on June 24, 201, the Plaintiff, as an agent, performed on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation for approval for use of the building C4th floor (hereinafter “instant building”) at the leisure time with a building permit granted from the leisure market on March 15, 2011. On-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation were conducted on July 7, 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. Unlike the details of the initial construction permit, the Defendant discovered the increased number of households of the instant building (hereinafter “instant violation”).

C. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of an administrative disposition in advance that the Plaintiff sent a prior notice of the same content as the attached Form 1 in accordance with Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s performance of the field investigation and inspection for design, construction supervision, and approval for use is a cause attributable to the violation of relevant statutes.

On November 25, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the disposition was taken as shown in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in the course of conducting a field investigation, inspection, confirmation, etc. for design, construction supervision, approval for use, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 12, 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.