The defendant's disposition of imposing penalty points to the plaintiffs on December 16, 2019 shall be revoked in entirety.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) is a supervisor of multi-family housing (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) executed by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and Plaintiff B is a supervisor belonging to the Plaintiff Company.

B. Around October 2019, the Defendant inspected the construction site of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant inspection”) and discovered that one of the safety difficulties installed in the opening of the instant apartment project on the F-dong rooftop (hereinafter “safety difficulties”) was separated from the wall and 24-25cm.

(hereinafter referred to as “the detection of the instant case”).

The defendant on the 21th of the same month on the grounds that there is a fall risk of workers due to insufficient installation of the safety accident between E and on-site agents (Article 53(1) of the Construction Technology Promotion Act and Article 87 and attached Table 8) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Pursuant to Item 1.11(b), each point of points of points is 1.1(b), and 2 points of points of points are set to the plaintiffs in accordance with the above [Attachment 8] No. 5(a)(2.4(b) and they are notified to the plaintiffs and E(hereinafter “the first notification”).

The plaintiffs around November 19, 2019, and No. 5 A of the above [Attachment 8] relating to the exposure of the plaintiffs to the defendant in this case.

The safety problems in this case were established in compliance with Article 13 or 43 of the Regulations on the Standards for Industrial Safety and Health concerning Protection Measures against the opening part or the requirements for the structure and installation of safety accidents. However, after the completion of the work, the work by the work manager moved to the right side of the rooftop, is not restored to the original state, and it cannot be said that the rules on industrial safety and health should not be violated. Thus, the safety problems in this case submitted an opinion to the effect that the plaintiffs should not be subject to the above rules on industrial safety and health.