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 entered into a construction contract with B on August 7, 2014 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) as follows (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

A) The name of the construction project: The name of the CA procuring entity that was the representative contractor of the Ulsan District Government: The date of commencement of construction costs of KRW 308,716,100 on the Plaintiff’s site: the date of completion on August 11, 2014: the date of completion: December 10, 2014: 0.1% (2%) on the other hand, at the time of conclusion of the instant construction contract, the general conditions of construction contracts (as of January 14, 2014) in B were included as follows:

Article 42 (Approval, etc. of Subcontract) (1) Where the other party to a contract intends to subcontract part of the contracted construction to a third party, it shall be governed by the Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

B. On June 27, 2016, the Board of Audit and Inspection’s audit results and the Defendant’s business suspension disposition 1) conducted an audit on the Ulsan District District Office B, and around February 3, 2017, the Board of Audit and Inspection notified B of the Plaintiff’s subcontracting of the instant construction work in violation of Article 31(3) of the Information and Communications Construction Business Act to another company, including D, and subsequent measures accordingly. (2) B took measures to restrict the Plaintiff from participating in the tendering procedure for six months on May 2, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “a subcontractor without the permission of the ordering agency.”

3) Meanwhile, on March 30, 2017, the Defendant filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on April 12, 2017, against the Defendant, and filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant, and filed an application to suspend the execution of the instant disposition, on the grounds that “the Plaintiff did not comply with the written consent from the ordering person at the time of subcontract” with the Plaintiff on March 30, 2017.

2. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission shall request the plaintiff to suspend the execution on April 21, 2017.