1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was established on June 14, 2002 and completed registration of construction business on October 8 of the same year with the category of business as an engineering work business.

B. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received a disposition of suspension of business from the Defendant for five months from September 24, 2015 to February 23, 2016 on the ground that the registration criteria for construction business (capital) falls short of the standards.

C. The Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff’s capital in 2016 was less than KRW 175,809,001, which is below KRW 700,000,000 as a result of a survey on actual status of construction business conducted in 2017, and subsequently, on November 30, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to cancel the Plaintiff’s registration of engineering work pursuant to the proviso to Article 83 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and subparagraph 3-3 (hereinafter “instant provision”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the registration standards for the same construction business within three years after receiving the said disposition of suspension of business.

[The facts without dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that this case’s ground provision provides for the uniform cancellation of registration where the Plaintiff failed to meet the same registration standards within three years after receiving a disposition of suspension of business because it falls short of the registration standards for construction business, regardless of whether it is likely to supplement the registration standards for construction business, or whether there was a actual damage due to

Therefore, the ground provision of this case is in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition, and is unconstitutional because it infringes the plaintiff's freedom of occupation, and thus, the disposition of this case based on the ground provision of this case is also unlawful.

3. Whether the ground provision of this case is unconstitutional

A. The ground provision of this case and the attached Form of relevant statutes are as follows.

B. In light of the following circumstances, even if the underlying provision of this case limits the Plaintiff’s freedom of occupation, it violates the principle of excessive prohibition.