1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part added or added below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the fourth bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

In addition, Article 15 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Act provides that the company subject to external audit under Article 2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies and the company except public institutions under Article 2 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions shall apply the accounting standards publicly notified by the Minister of Justice in consultation with the Minister of

At the bottom of the 6th judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the representative director renounced the provisional payment during the hearing procedure, but even if the Plaintiff additionally submitted data at the trial, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s employee asserted that the representative director renounced the provisional payment during the hearing procedure, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other evidence to prove that there was a waiver of the provisional payment, and the following is added from 6th below the judgment of the first instance.

4) On August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion: (a) received documents for the periodic report of the matters regarding the registration standard of construction business from 2014 to 2017, including financial statements and evidential documents that were submitted to the Defendant at the time of the instant disposition; (b) received the Plaintiff’s report without determining that the Plaintiff’s capital, etc. fell short of the registration standard of construction business; and accordingly, (c) the instant disposition otherwise determined was unlawful, despite the fact that the Plaintiff’s capital was recognized to be more than 50 million won.

(b).