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 shall have the technical ability of “not less than five construction engineers of at least the first level in the construction field, including two persons, from among construction engineers in the construction field under the National Technical Qualifications Act or construction engineers at least in the middle level under the Construction Technology Promotion Act” as a company engaging in construction work, in accordance with Article 10 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and Article 13(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and shall periodically report the above matters concerning the registration standards pursuant to Article 9(4) of the Framework

B. On May 15, 2014, the Defendant filed a periodic report on the matters concerning the registration of construction business under Article 9(4) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and filed a report as if he/she had employed B, who is an industrial engineer for construction, even though he/she did not actually employ B, from May 25, 2009 to May 25, 2010, and accordingly, revoked the registration of construction business as of May 29, 2014 on the ground that “the Plaintiff filed a false report on the matters concerning the standards for registration of construction business” under Article 83 subparag. 2 and Article 9(4) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 12-2 of the Enforcement Decree

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and Eul’s evidence No. 1 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is erroneous as follows, and thus, it should be revoked.

1 Around May 2009, the Plaintiff retired from office as a construction engineer C, and employed B as a construction engineer, who had been a university student at the time, but could work as a university student at the time.

However, B was scheduled to work on the spot with another construction engineer who works for the Plaintiff Company due to lack of on-site experience, but after June 2009, the Plaintiff was faced with difficulties in receiving construction contracts and decided to assign only one construction engineer to each field.