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 is a company engaged in steel products, waterproofing, construction business, facility maintenance business, painting construction business, etc., and registered as a specialized construction business around August 17, 1998 after its incorporation.

B. On October 18, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to cancel construction business registration on October 25, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 83 proviso 5 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry that the Plaintiff had another person perform construction works using his/her trade name.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 9, 27 evidence, Eul evidence 1 (including provisional number, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was awarded a contract for the "C Corporation" ordered by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office (hereinafter "C Corporation") and subcontracted it to D, which is an employee of the plaintiff, and since it did not cause D to use the plaintiff's trade name to supply or perform the above construction, it is unlawful that the disposition of this case did not have any ground for disposition.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Facts of recognition 1) On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff and E, the representative director, were ordered by the Seoul Central District Court to summary order of KRW 3 million for each of the following criminal facts as a violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the above summary order became final and conclusive due to the failure to file a request for formal trial (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 18861, hereinafter “instant summary order”).

(i) [The fact-finding constructor shall not allow any other person to receive or perform any construction works by using his/her name or trade name, and the other party shall be prohibited from executing any construction works by using his/her name or trade name;

Nevertheless,

A. Defendant E, around April 4, 201, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.