1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension for six months against the Plaintiff on March 6, 2017 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 26, 2015, the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff registered as an aggregate extraction business entity violated the Aggregate Extraction Act, etc. on May 2, 2013, by screening and crushing rocks brought in from the outside to March 26, 2015, with a total of 636,170 square meters of aggregate, etc. (hereinafter “production of aggregate without reporting”).

B. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the registration of aggregate extraction business should be cancelled pursuant to Article 21(1) and (2) of the Administrative Procedures Act, and notified the Plaintiff of the holding of the hearing, and held the hearing on September 24, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director C et al. were indicted for violating the Aggregate Extraction Act, etc. under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch Decision 2015Ra4100. On August 25, 2016, the said court sentenced the Plaintiff’s representative director C to a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two years of suspended execution, and a fine of KRW 10 million for the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff and C appealed to the Suwon District Court 2016No5711 and is currently pending in the appellate court.

After the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff of the disposition that the revocation of registration on the ground of violation of the Aggregate Extraction Act or the suspension of business is expected to be imposed for six months, and that the hearing was conducted on January 5, 2017.

E. On March 6, 2017, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff, in violation of Article 32(1) of the Aggregate Extraction Act, to suspend business operations for six months (from March 2017 to September 19, 2017) in accordance with the disposition standards prescribed in Article 19(1)11 of the Aggregate Extraction Act and Article 24 [Attachment Table 1-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was engaged in the production of the instant unreported aggregate.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including numbers), and Eul evidence 1 to 2.