All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs Gap Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Plaintiff Co., Ltd.") is a corporation established for the purpose of design and supervision, such as construction, and the plaintiff C is the designer belonging to the plaintiff Co., Ltd.

B. Around June 2017, Plaintiff Company entered into a contract with Busan Metropolitan City on D Design Services (hereinafter “instant design services”). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs performed the instant design services from June 15, 2017 to November 12, 2018.

C. On December 16, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the determination of a fraudulent penalty point and the imposition of a fraudulent penalty point 1) based on Article 53(1) of the Construction Technology Promotion Act, Article 87(5) [Attachment 8] of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Promotion Act, and Article 40 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, etc., on the ground that the Plaintiffs were negligent in preparing design drawings and specifications according to the instant design service, etc., the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the determination of a fraudulent penalty point 3 points. 2) The Plaintiffs, upon receipt of the above notification, cannot be recognized as the grounds for each disposition presented by the Defendant around January 2020, submitted a written opinion to the effect that the imposition of a false penalty point 3 points

3) On February 7, 2020, the Defendant shall conduct an execution audit from the Busan Metropolitan City Audit Committee on September 2019 (hereinafter “instant audit”).

(ii)Preparation of design drawings and specifications in accordance with the instant design service as pointed out at the time (specific reasons for action are as follows:

(1) On the ground of Article 53(1) of the Construction Technology Promotion Act, Article 87(5) [Attachment 8] of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Promotion Act, and Article 40 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, imposing three points for each fraudulent penalty (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

1) The lower court determined that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lower court’s determination that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lower court’s decision, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.